Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Kyoto Summit

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

Ms Joan Walley: It is a privilege to initiate the debate on the Kyoto climate summit to be held in December. I am pleased to see the Minister for the Environment at the Dispatch Box. I am pleased also to see so many Members in the Chamber for this really important debate. I hope particularly that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) will be able to contribute to it. He is as genuinely concerned about the effects of global warming in Gillingham as I am about the effects in Stoke-on-Trent, North.
We must remember the context in which the debate is taking place. The Kyoto summit will be the third conference of the parties to the United Nations framework conference on climate change. It will review progress to date, and it is an opportunity which we cannot afford to lose.
There are many reasons why I wish to raise the issues surrounding the Kyoto summit. It is important that we have the opportunity to debate them, but I want the debate to be for the many and not the few. It is not enough for Parliament to have the debate; we must ensure that it spreads ever wider throughout the country.
I noted with great interest this morning's announcement by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that he is setting up an advisory panel to promote citizenship among young people. I hope that its chairman, Professor Bernard Crick, will make arrangements for that awareness to include environmental issues.
I want the media to take up the debate about Kyoto and about how we might make progress towards achieving the tightest possible emission standards. I am pleased that the two programmes "Costing the Earth" are to appear on television this week and next week. I hope that they will give the public the opportunity to consider the scientific evidence and to make up their own minds about what is happening. I hope also that debates such as this will take place in parliaments throughout the world so that parliamentarians, as well as Governments and Ministers, can take part in a crucial worldwide debate.
More than anything else, I want to give our new Government the most resounding send-off when they go to the important negotiations in Kyoto. It is crucial that the debate here takes place in time to influence events and so that Ministers know that they have the backing of the country when they go to Kyoto.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be part of the mission, which may even save the world at Kyoto. I want him to return with a legally binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. I am mindful of the work that he has already done in respect of the sea and seafarers and transport policy. I have confidence that, given what my right hon. Friend learned so often with the International Maritime Organisation, he, of all people, knows that it is crucial to go for the highest denominator, not the lowest. That is the message of optimism that we must send from the House.
I would not be so bold as to assert that people throughout the country talk of nothing else but Kyoto. I should like to think that that was true, but things do not work quite like that. I know that in many parts of the country people are talking about major political issues. One major issue, for example, is whether we will get the world cup four years after Paris. I should like the debate about Kyoto to be on a par with interest in the world cup. I should like to think that the debate about global warming is of such importance that people will wish to become well informed and well versed on issues that will become everyday matters of conversation.
Although such topics may not be on everybody's lips, people are increasingly concerned about the effects of global warming. It does matter; it touches their everyday lives. People want something to be done, and they want to be part of the solution.
We are not quite in the same situation as people who live in small island states such as the Maldives, who fear that, because of the rising sea level, their islands could disappear, but we face a real danger of flooding. What will happen to low-lying areas? There are crucial issues involving health, the water supply, shortage and biodiversity. Most of all, we have to look at the scientific evidence to see whether what we have heard could happen is just scaremongering or whether there is a scientific base for the worst possible scenario. As most hon. Members know, I would want us always to take the precautionary approach, and I hope that I will be able to carry many people with me.
The scientific evidence is indisputable. The 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which comprised no fewer than 2,500 experts, concluded:
There is a discernible human"—
I stress human—
influence on global climate.
A report is due next month from the workshop held in Boulder, Colorado, in September, which was attended by the world's biggest wildlife groups, including the World Wide Fund for Nature, and Wildlife International, of which our own Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a member. All the evidence is there. Groups such as Greenpeace, for which I have the greatest respect, and Friends of the Earth are not scaremongering. There is evidence, which we have to accept. Having done so, we cannot just leave it. To know is not enough. Once something is known, something has to be done about it. That is why all of us are here. We all have to do as much as we can, in whatever way we can, about Kyoto and the huge issues we face.
It concerns me that there are still people, for example the chairman of Exxon, who say that climate change is not really an issue, and that it should not be dealt with by


regulation. We have to tackle people who still say that. We must ensure that we make real progress with the climate conventions, and ensure that this Parliament—I stress that it is not just for the Government and Ministers—gives full backing to our Government in what will be an uphill, or "up-bank", as we say in Stoke-on-Trent, struggle that they will have on their hands when they go to Japan.
The run-up to the 10 days of negotiations at Kyoto will be a testing time for the United Kingdom. It is not just our hopes that are pinned on the leadership of the new Labour Government. The whole world has recognised, particularly at the Earth summit II conference in New York last July, that, with our Prime Minister, we have new vision and leadership. Having seen what can be done, there is even greater emphasis on what more could be done. I still believe that, if anybody can, our Government can achieve the best deal.
It is a question not of doing as I say, but of doing as I do. For that reason, I welcome the very clear commitments that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has given, including various presentations at the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. We are aiming for a 20 per cent. reduction in 1990 emission levels by 2010. Above all else, that commitment makes the Government most able to squeeze the best deal out of negotiations. I accept that the dash for gas has helped us to achieve things that we might never have dared hope for, although at a price. None the less, that is our starting point. Now we can achieve even more.
There is also a track record since July. I recognise that the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), tried to address the issue. We have a Cabinet committee, which is at the heart of government, to ensure proper environmental assessment on all issues. It will not be easy to get that from the Treasury when the Green Paper is published. When I talk about a green Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not have the same ideas that I have, but the Cabinet committee can start to make progress on these matters, and I hope that it will.
We will continue the round table on sustainability. That can play an important role in the debate that we need to have throughout the country. I am delighted that the Environment Audit Committee, which was a manifesto pledge, has been set up. I am proud to be a member of it, and I want to play my part on it to get real progress. We now have the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which comprises the former Departments of Transport and the Environment. We have an opportunity for integrated transport. The consultation period has just ended, and we are about to have new Green Papers and White Papers. What is more, the Deputy Prime Minister is striding round the world, bringing together all the countries that have not yet signed up to what we want them to sign. He is also chairing the annexe 1 group of countries at Kyoto.
It is not all simple and straightforward. Achieving the 20 per cent. target that this country wants will not be plain sailing. It will present us with difficulties. More can usually be achieved at the beginning than further along the way, because, by the later stage, the big savings have

already been made. However, sometimes it is possible to achieve more later, because more people understand the issues. That is the message which we have to get across. There will be hard choices, but I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will see how we can balance them. I shall list just a few.
In our integrated transport plans, I want to see targets for road traffic reduction as well as for transport. At some stage, however much we may not want to do so, we will have to consider the issue of aviation fuel and tax subsidies.
There is a threat of opencast coal mining in my constituency. I want us to have a presumption against opencast. I want legislation for energy conservation and efficiency. I am not happy that the gas regulator, unlike her predecessor, is not prepared to understand the arguments about energy savings and conservation. It may well be a matter on which the House will need to legislate, but my understanding is that we could not do so within about two years. What happens in the meantime? Are we to let her get away with saying that it is not her responsibility? It does not appear to be anybody else's responsibility either.
While on the subject of energy conservation, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, in the nicest and most supportive way that I can, that I met the Energy Saving Trust yesterday, and although I understand that we have accepted the previous Government's spending limits, it does not seem quite right in terms of our priorities that the trust's budget has been reduced from £19 million to £13 million. I am sure that, with the right will, we can find a way forward so that it can continue its invaluable work.
Clean coal technology for deep-mined coal needs to be on the agenda. Sooner or later—perhaps later rather than sooner—we must look at switching the balance towards renewables, and at the whole role of oil exploration.
We have to ensure that civil servants are doing what the political masters and mistresses here are saying that they could be doing.
There is enormous hope for optimism because of what we have committed ourselves to. As with anything, it is no good our doing our best if we cannot secure agreements on the world stage for what needs to be done internationally.
As far as I can see, Japan is not doing enough. As the host country for the summit, it should be under a special obligation to be at the cutting edge and to make the greatest possible commitment to what is needed at Kyoto. Extra pressure needs to be exerted, and I hope that our Government will be able to put in whatever word is needed. As a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, with the prospect—I put it no higher than that—of a visit to Japan, I hope that the Committee will be able to continue where the Government leaves off post-Kyoto.
I know that the work of the House deservedly has a considerable personal following throughout America. We recognise that President Clinton may be between a rock and a hard place—between Congress and the Senate—but we want him to look afresh at the issues. We pin great hopes on his securing tighter agreement in his country about what should be happening at Kyoto. I hope that our Government can exert further influence in America, so that it, too, can play its part. President Clinton was


elected on an environmental platform, and I feel that he can do better than stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2012.
We all have a special responsibility for the annexe 1 countries. It is vital that we do not transfer to the developing world the mistakes that the industrialised countries have made. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will take that on board, but I feel that a message of support should go out from our Parliament.
Binding targets must be agreed at Kyoto. It is the best chance we have. I want these to be "ten days that shook the world". Energy-efficient technology needs to be transferred, and, as part of the reform of the United Nations, we need to find a way of monitoring, policing and enforcing agreements so that there is full compliance. I hope that Klaus Topfler will be able to carry out some of the necessary reforms if he moves to the United Nations Environment Programme. I also hope that we shall be able to make progress when we attend conferences with other parliamentarians.
We should not lose heart just because we may not secure the best possible deal at Kyoto, and may manage only a modest first step. The United Kingdom must go on leading. We need a permanent process to keep the negotiations moving and to follow through success or failure at Kyoto. The European presidency will provide us with a huge opportunity to do that.
We need more than a one-off, ad hoc debate in Parliament on this important issue. We need a strategy. Perhaps the Procedure Committee could ensure that we have regular follow-up discussions, so that we can identify the targets and establish how much progress we are making. There is no way out for any of us. We must make certain that the debate reaches out to the heart of our democracy—to schools and local government, through Agenda 21; to business, and to community groups. We need full and regular scrutiny of how our 20 per cent. targets are progressing here in the United Kingdom. Parliament has a real role to play, and I hope that through today's debate—in which I know many hon. Members wish to speak—we can take things forward, and send our Government off to do the job that we depend on their doing in Kyoto next month.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing a debate on such an important matter. Perhaps we should discuss environmental issues more than we do. In fact, this is not just a question of the environment, it is a question of the economy, the politics of the country and our attitude to various of our industries, including important industries such as the car industry and the fossil fuel industry.
Let me put my cards on the table. I drive a car, and Ford UK is in my constituency. That company is an important employer, but, like the rest of the car industry in the west nowadays, it is also extremely responsible in regard to emissions. Over the past few years, it has reduced the particulates—the bits and pieces that come out of exhaust pipes—to practically nil.
We are not talking about the kind of pollution that we associate with the old-fashioned smogs. We are talking in particular about Kyoto, which is intended to deal with

the level of carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere. We must discover where those emissions come from. In fact, the great majority do not come from motor cars: only about 20 per cent. of the alleged carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere—by which I assume people mean emissions other than the natural carbon dioxide emissions from decaying vegetable matter—come from cars.
I should say in passing that I have been a scientist for the past 35 years, and I therefore know something about the detail of the subject. Facts and figures sometimes drive people nuts and do not get to the point, but the point is that the motor car is not the villain that it is sometimes portrayed as being. The vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions probably come from house dwellers—from the fuel they burn or from the fuel they waste. Housing should be better insulated, because it can have a detrimental effect on the air that we all breathe.
Of course we are all keen to improve the environment, but the atmosphere and its effect on our climate have little to do with anything we do on this earth. Most climate changes are due either to the sun, which influences our climate enormously, or to our planet's orbit around it. That orbit varies, as was demonstrated recently. Those who were awake and looking at the sky one night in September will have seen a remarkable eclipse of the moon, which, for a short period, appeared much larger than usual. That was because of one of the wobbles in the earth's orbit.
The climate is also strongly influenced by ocean currents, as we saw recently. El Nino has had a massive effect on the climate. It causes huge changes, producing violent rain storms and other destructive weather, for which some people immediately blame motor car pollution.
Another massive cause of climate change is volcanic activity. People seem to think, from what they read in the papers, that a volcano pops off occasionally—that it is a one-off event that occurs every few years, and is not significant. That is not true. In the Antarctic region, close to the area where the measurement of ozone holes is carried out, there is a very active volcano, Mount Erebus, which produces in a year more chlorine gases—which contribute to the chlorofluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere—than the whole of industrial production since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those are the three massive forces over which human beings have little control.
Another significant climatic element is the fact that the Earth is basically a water planet, 75 per cent. of whose surface is covered by water. Only 15 per cent. of the remaining part—the land mass—is habitable: most of it consists of mountain ranges, ice plains and deserts.
The inhabited part of the earth's surface is very small, and only a tiny portion of that is industrialised; most of it is agricultural land. It is important to keep the facts and figures in proportion. Only a small part of the Earth's surface is involved in industrial activities that contribute CO2, to the atmosphere. There is a tendency to think that industrial activity is extremely dangerous for our atmosphere and climate, and that the problem can be dealt with by punishing the motorist and cutting down on the use of the motor car. At that point, the argument comes down to politics.
I see from the attendance in the Chamber for this debate that a number of hon. Members are concerned about this matter. If they want to hear the other side of the story,


I advise them to read documents produced by NASA. Its upper atmosphere research programme puts out extremely informative documents about changes in the atmosphere and about the amount of gases, including greenhouse gases. It insists that the hysteria that is generated by this subject, particularly on climate effects, is unwarranted, but that is not a particularly popular view. An enormous number of institutions, such as Globe, genuinely believe that there is a serious problem that industrialised western countries can deal with.
I should love better quality air. Everyone wants that; it is like motherhood and apple pie. I deplore the fact that, when I was in Egypt recently, I could see across the Nile at 7 am, but not at 10 am, because pollution levels from the old rust buckets that roam the streets were such that the atmosphere was very unpleasant. That applies in other parts of the world, such as China, although I have never been there. I know Mexico City very well, and it has a dreadful pollution problem, but that is partly due to the fact that the city is surrounded by mountainous regions.
There is an alternative point of view, and it is well received in the United States. It brings me to the attitude of President Clinton to the Kyoto conference. Without the agreement of the Americans to the proposed 20 per cent. reduction in emissions, nothing much will happen. President Clinton has laid his cards on the table. We should not assume that his is just the voice of a careless and vote-happy President who wants to preserve his industries against the better interests of mankind. The Americans are as pollution-conscious and as concerned about global warming as we are.
In science, one has to deal with the facts and consider both sides of the story. The amount of investment in our industrial society, the jobs it provides and its importance to the standard of living of the people we represent are serious considerations. We should not go to the Kyoto conference calling for global figures, such as a 20 per cent. reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, just because that is a nice target at which to aim.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Lady's argument, because I recognise that other factors are at work, but we should take the right remedy. The car industry produced the catalytic converter, but it is not much use in industrial cities and is a waste of money. Does the hon. Lady accept that the argument coming out of the United States is that the Americans do not want their industries to be injured further while other countries are polluting more than they are? The argument is not just about the scientific fact that nature produces its own pollution: it is about the Americans looking after the mighty buck.

Mrs. Gorman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I put it to him that it is the duty of any Government to ensure that industries, which are the backbone of communities, are properly looked after and protected. I hope that every hon. Member has the same attitude.
Is President Clinton being selfish or is he being responsible in saying that emissions produced by motor cars in the United States are relatively small, given the improvements that have been made, especially with

regard to particulates as opposed to the CO2 element? How important are 2 emissions from the motor car compared with other forms of adding CO2 to the atmosphere? I repeat that less than 20 per cent. of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere come from the car, so it is an easy target. Insulation of properties is less easy, because everyone could do something about that, as opposed to leaving an individual industry to do it.
Other parts of the globe, such as China, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Mexico, are not able to make those improvements, especially given the low level of wealth of their citizens. The way to help those countries is to improve their economies overall. I am sure that the Egyptians who were driving rust buckets around Cairo would love to have a nice car with controlled emissions and catalytic convertors, whether or not they work.
My argument is about the importance of the motor car. This debate and the discussions at Kyoto are an attack on the industrialised west, its alleged greedy consumption of fossil fuels such as coal and its selfish use of raw materials in the production of motor cars.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: It is important to note that objective scientific work has been done on this subject. The energy technology support unit has produced an account of how it believes the United Kingdom proposal of a 20 per cent. reduction could be achieved by 2010. It has produced figures for different sectors: industry and services could reduce by 9.6 million tonnes of carbon; the domestic sector by 7.6 million tonnes; transport by 14.9 million tonnes, so that is an important component; and renewable energy could make a contribution of 2.7 million tonnes. Those figures show a 40 million tonne carbon reduction. That is not a random attack on any particular sector, certainly not on the transport sector. However, the reality is that transport can and will have to make its contribution.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman's point is perfectly acceptable, but I am trying to explain to the House that most of the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere is not the responsibility of the motor car. Furthermore, gas carbon dioxide is only one of the greenhouse gases; most of it is water vapour that rises above the Earth, forms clouds and helps climate control by acting as a screen.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: No, not at the moment.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is welcome because it aids the photosynthetic process of plants. It is not an awful substance: it is not poisonous to human beings, except in vast concentrations, and it is positively helpful to vegetation. It is a soluble gas, especially in sea water where plankton rely on it for photosynthesis, which affects the food chain right up to mankind. We must stop regarding that gas as a poisonous substance which does us enormous harm.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The question is not whether there is a natural balance in the atmosphere, which includes natural CO2 as well as that which is emitted. In time, that balance will alter. The issue is whether mankind's additional CO2 emissions are


upsetting that balance. The hon. Lady seems to miss the fact that, overwhelmingly, the world's scientists take the view that we are upsetting that balance. The OECD nations and the Government have also accepted that. Even oil companies such as BP have accepted that it is a serious issue and that our actions are affecting the climate because we are upsetting the natural balance.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman has his view. I recently attended a meeting in the House of Lords with the energy industries. Those industries, and especially the coal industry, expressed great concern that the demands of Kyoto would wipe them out. Every hon. Member knows that it is important not to devastate key industries because that would have an enormous backlash affecting the amount of support that we would have to provide to those communities. If we are not careful, they could be destroyed by the casual adoption of a target whose significance I challenge in terms of improving the global climate, pollution or the well-being of mankind in general. I presume that I shall be the only person to present that view.
I do not wish to denigrate the sentiments of the dedicated followers of orthodoxy, including the Globe European network mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, North. I do not suggest that they are on a crusade to destroy basic industries. My point is that there is another side to the scientific evidence. The United States is much more aware of that, because its technological and scientific groups such as NASA are producing the statistics to back that view. Far from being irresponsible and selfish, President Clinton's attitude is balanced, sensible and sane.
We all want to make life better for people and the way not to do that is to attack, seek to destroy or make more expensive the use of the motor car, which is people's pride and joy, or increase the cost of fuel for heating their homes. That is a sensitive political issue and we should not lightly embark on increasing fuel costs because of concern for what may not be as important an issue as it is made out to be.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is tempting to respond in detail to the speech by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Don't.

Mr. Stunell: I shall take that advice.
The topic is vital not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren. Some of the hon. Lady's comments were sad. Climate change is real, global warming is serious and both of them are avoidable. The hon. Lady has missed those points. Kyoto provides an opportunity to concentrate people's minds on the impact of failure. If it succeeds, there is little doubt that climate change can be arrested, but it will take decades of hard work internationally, nationally and locally.
If Kyoto fails, climate change is likely to spin out of control. The consequences for the United Kingdom would be serious, and the hon. Member for Billericay has missed some of those. Elsewhere in the world, the effects would be catastrophic. There is no doubt that some nations would disappear, and the feedback from catastrophes

elsewhere will produce political instability, poverty, homelessness and hunger on an international scale that we have not seen so far.
The hon. Member for Billericay is right to say that global warming is a natural consequence of our atmosphere. Its greenhouse effect adds about 21 deg C to the temperature of the earth, and the hon. Lady might think that an extra couple of degrees will not make much difference. It will make a great deal of difference. It will add 50 cm to sea levels in the next 40 or 50 years and the levels will continue to rise. That is why the Liberal Democrats think that it is right for the United Kingdom and the European Union to take the lead in tackling global warming.
We welcome the United Kingdom's progress over the past few years, although we recall that much of it was accidental—the consequence of the destruction of our indigenous coal industry and the dash for gas. We welcome the Prime Minister's pledge of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2010. It is good to hear that that will remain a Government commitment even if Kyoto is not a success. Promises must be backed by action. We recognise that it is early days for the Government to produce an impact on the issue. There has not been much time to sort things out, and we accept what the Prime Minister said on television on Sunday. He is a man of honour and he intends to deliver. I know that the Minister fully shares that view.
However, the Government need to recognise some harsh realities. The first is that UK carbon emissions rose by some 2 per cent. last year, after a period during which they had been dropping. Contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Billericay, the good work is being undone by the additional mileage on British roads. The growth of that transport has led to the increase in carbon emissions, and that is a worrying trend. We take 1990 as our base line and look forward to 2010. We are a third of the way through that 20-year interval, and Britain has rising carbon emissions.
There is a risk that by the year 2000—halfway through the 20-year period—we will have failed to reduce emissions to the 1990 level. The previous Government had intended to be about 8 per cent. below that level by the year 2000. The figures show that significant new policies will be needed if Britain is to reduce emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 emissions by 2010.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) was right to speak about positive actions by the Government. I must balance the account and point to some less positive happenings since 1 May.
The targets will be harder to reach because most Departments do not know whether they are keeping to targets. I recently asked a series of parliamentary questions and in every case I was referred to the climate change book which was produced by the previous Government. I thought that perhaps I was a slow reader and had missed a bit at the back listing every Department and giving targets, but no such information is there. If the parliamentary answers are to be believed, Departments do not have clear, internal energy policies, objectives and plans. I asked the Secretary of State for Health what representations he had received about public health and hygiene as a result of climate change, and he said that he had received none


The targets will be more difficult to achieve for another reason: in a commendable effort to reduce fuel poverty, the Government have cut value added tax on domestic fuel to 8 per cent., but kept it at 17.5 per cent. on insulation materials, which could help to reduce fuel consumption. Last week, the House debated the fossil fuel levy, which can now be applied to renewable energy producers—another Government decision which is difficult to understand. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister for the Environment believes that that is sensible.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned the Energy Saving Trust. Can it be right that, last year, supported by the Department of the Environment, its budget was £25 million, that this year it is £19 million and that next year it is projected to be £13.5 million? Is that a sensible way to set about reaching the targets?
The hon. Member also mentioned that the gas regulator is blocking a levy to support renewables. It is interesting that, when Neighbourhood Energy Action asked MORI to do a poll of the public, asking, "Would you prefer to have your fuel bills reduced by the installation of insulation in your home or by being offered lower prices by your fuel supplier?", 40 per cent. of people said that they would prefer the insulation solution and 30 per cent. the lower prices solution. It would be both popular and sensible to invest in insulation rather than simply in cut-price fuel supplies.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I agree with the drift of what the hon. Gentleman says. Meeting the 20 per cent. reduction target by 2010 is ambitious and may be difficult, but may I console him with this fact? Most of the progress to date has been because of the dash for gas. At present, only about 20 per cent. of our electricity is generated from gas. By 2000, it will be 50 per cent. and, after that, it will be more, so the dash for gas will continue. I know that that is bad news for coal mining areas, but the continued dash for gas makes a large contribution to savings.

Mr. Stunell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is still true that the driving force for that dash is the gas surplus in the world market. Therefore, as its price is low, a levy could be placed on the fuel by the regulator, with customers still receiving lower gas prices—although not perhaps as low as they would be if one went for bargain-basement pricing—and would be invested in insulation, which would reduce overall fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is an absolutely key point here. This is one for Government; the previous Government failed to face it. With energy prices falling and likely to continue to fall, the Government can simply allow that to happen, with customers receiving the benefit and inevitably using more fuel because it is cheaper, or take action through levies to pay for improvements to tackle fuel poverty. For the people who can least afford to heat their homes, fuel price cuts are not significant.

Insulation would be far more significant. It would mean a stabilisation of fuel prices, which would send a signal that people cannot expect a cut in prices.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a brief debate. Interventions should be short. The hon. Gentleman is depriving other hon. Members who badly want to speak of the time in which to do so.

Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for what he has said, which I fully support.
In the run-up to Kyoto, the Government should, first, be working more closely with non-governmental organisations. It was disappointing for the Prime Minister to reply that the Government would not be including any non-governmental organisation representative in the official delegation to Kyoto, and it is worrying that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary will be going to such a major international event.
Secondly, the Government should ensure that every Government Department and agency establishes an energy-saving plan with clear objectives and targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Thirdly, the Government should cut VAT on insulation materials and sign up to the Energy Saving Trust plan, which would reduce domestic fuel consumption by 17 per cent. and carbon emissions by some 14 per cent. over the next 13 years. It would also save money for consumers purchasing fuel and create 20,000 jobs.
That is an ambitious target, and I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Billericay. We are talking about the development of high-technology alternative industries. If Britain manages to be at the forefront of those industries, they will be profitable as well as ecologically sound.
Fourthly, the Government should reconsider their new deal plan and the money that they put into the environmental task force. At present, the materials grant is up to £90 per week per person. In many cases, that will mean that insulation projects are beyond the reach of the task force. I hope that the Government will consider that apparently small point, which could have a major impact.
Fifthly, I hope that the Government will pledge support and time to the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, which would make a material difference on traffic emissions into the atmosphere. 
Sixthly, as a Liberal Democrat, I say, of course, that it would be appropriate for the Government to cut vehicle excise duty on cars below 1,500 cc and to increase fuel tax to raise the extra money required. In that way, we could achieve a pattern more like that of the Danes and the Italians: we could have smaller cars and fewer journeys.
I could say much more, but I know that this is a short debate. I give credit to the Government for their stance and promises on global warming. I and other Liberal Democrat Members wish them every success in the difficult and complex negotiations, but I sincerely urge them to get stuck in here in the UK. There is much to be done and there is plenty of public support for it to be done. There is no great mystery about the policies that are needed, and most of them do not have a high price tag. Liberal Democrats want some Government courage and some Government determination. That will bring success and profit.

Mr. Paul Clark: It gives me great pleasure to deliver my maiden speech, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for securing this debate. It is a great pleasure because I recognise the honour bestowed on me by the electorate of Gillingham and because I am representing my home town, of which I am immensely proud.
My success on 1 May was, of course, another's failure. James Couchman was the sitting Member of Parliament and had held the seat for some 14 years. He served on the Social Security, Health, Public Accounts and Northern Ireland Select Committees and was Parliamentary Private Secretary to many Ministers during those years. 
Times move on, but I am pleased to say that Gillingham people are loyal, at least to the authority of Parliament. History records that, during the civil war, a distinguished Gillingham citizen, Philip Fraude, fought on the side of the king, but:
The district as a whole appears to have prudently supported Parliament".
Long may Gillingham people have so much sense. 
Some hon. Members may ask, where is Gillingham? It lies on the estuary of the River Medway in Kent and some of my constituency is a special scientific interest area, which has been a matter of consultation this week. Gillingham is one of the Medway towns and, unlike its neighbours, Chatham and Rochester, it is densely populated: its total population is more than 90,000, squeezed into just 4,500 hectares of land. That figure includes the special scientific interest area that lies in the River Medway—not much use for people in terms of expansion. However, it is important in other ways, as I shall mention. There are a number of differences between the older part of the constituency, which lies to the north of the A2, and the southern part. On indices of overcrowding, as defined by the 1991 census, many of the northern wards have figures in excess of 3 per cent., when the average for Kent is 1.8 per cent. A survey of private sector stock showed that 8.5. per cent. of properties were unfit—for example, in poor repair, damp or with kitchen problems—compared with a county level of 5.6 per cent. In one ward, more than one fifth of properties were classified as unfit. Gillingham has a number of challenging issues, and none more so than the overcrowding of its land space.
Was Gillingham born out of reorganisation? No—it is recorded in the Domesday book of 1086. It is said that it was named after a war lord, Gyllingas—from the old English "gyllan" meaning "to shout". He was a notable man in Kent history as he led his warriors into battle screaming and shouting. I suppose that a modern translation of Gillingham would be "the home of shouting men"—and, of course, women, to be technically correct. I am delighted to tell the House that we keep up that tradition. The shouting men and women of Gillingham can be found every other Saturday on the terraces of Priestfield stadium, the home of Kent's only football league team, Gillingham FC, which is going from strength to strength.
Gillingham has assumed a role that has perhaps been unknown, but has been an important part of the defence of this country. It developed as a fishing village and port and 450 years ago, in 1547, storehouses were rented by the Navy for use at Gillingham water—so started

Gillingham's long association with the Navy. Gillingham dockyard formally opened in 1559, and it is from those early beginnings that the Medway towns developed. Over the centuries, thousands of men and women have been involved in the defence of the realm. 
Gillingham is also the home of Her Majesty's Corps of Royal Engineers. They are an integral part of the town and their headquarters continues to provide the finest military engineering training to be found anywhere in the western world. The corps headquarters have also been, at one time or another, home to great heroes of British history, such as Kitchener, Gordon and the eminent father and son team of Generals Sir Manley and Sir John Glubb. Gillingham is proud to have the engineers museum in the town, which I recommend to hon. Members as well worth a visit.
Many hon. Members will be saying, "Gillingham dockyard; Medway towns—wasn't it called Chatham dockyard?" Yes, it was, despite the facts that it started in Gillingham, and that, until the day it was closed in 1984, two thirds of the then modern-day dockyard lay within the boundaries of Gillingham. No one knows for certain why the name changed, but anyone who knows anything about using semaphore flags will be well aware that it is easier to spell out Chatham than Gillingham.
Gillingham has other claims to fame. Louis Brennan lived in Gillingham and tested his monorail in the town. He was clearly a man of great foresight, recognising traffic congestion in the early part of this century and the need for an integrated transport system.
Will Adams was equally famous, but he did not realise that he was to lay the foundations for Gillingham's future. He was shipwrecked off the coast of Japan—where the Kyoto summit is being held—and he stayed there to help develop Japanese ships. From that has arisen a link with two Japanese cities, Yokosuka and Ito. We have grown close to them through exchange visits. That has enabled us to form close links for business development. Gillingham business park is home to many thriving businesses, including Fuji Seal, Fuji Copian and Hochiki. They are the bases for their European operations.
There is a great deal of hope in Gillingham, which has a great deal to offer. Rising from the ashes of its former glory, the dockyard, there are high-quality developments providing jobs and housing on brown-field sites, but all that will pale into insignificance if we do not tackle the fundamentals that are being presented at the Kyoto conference. The cost of failing to reach agreement on the global climatic agenda will be to fail our country and our children.
As other hon. Members have said, it is essential that the greening of our policies must permeate all our thinking. I welcome the positive steps taken so far by the Government, such as the clear commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010, and the decision to put sustainable development at the heart of policy making, as is evident in the bringing together of the environment, transport and the regions into one co-ordinated Department.
ough targets have been set, but they are achievable by policies that are sensible in their own right. An integrated transport policy will make public transport more acceptable and attractive. There should be increasing use of renewable forms of energy. We must achieve greater efficiency in firms and bring the public sector up to the standards of the best. We must also improve energy efficiency in homes.
The first Labour Budget in 20 years was used to show that the environment has been placed at the core of the Government's objectives for the tax system. Among other measures, duties on road fuel were increased by 6 per cent., with a commitment to future increases of about 6 per cent. It is estimated that that will lead to additional savings of about 2.5 million tonnes of carbon annually by the year 2010.
Failure to secure legally binding targets in Kyoto will present us with the unthinkable. Other hon. Members have referred to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conferences in 1990, 1992 and 1996. The Geneva conference in 1996 concluded that there was discernible human influence on climate, which none of us can afford to ignore.
What does Kyoto mean to the people of Gillingham? Even today, when certain weather conditions prevail within the north sea and the Thames barrier is raised, there is a chance of flooding in the Medway estuary. The effects of rising sea levels would seriously affect the Medway towns. Gillingham's north Kent marshes are designated not only as a site of special scientific interest, but as a special protection area under the European directive on the conservation of wild birds. In addition, the marshes are a listed Ramsar site under the convention on wetlands of international importance.
Seven internationally important bird species, including the Brent goose and the redshank, live in the Medway marshes. They would all be threatened by rising sea levels, with the mudflats being affected and, hence, the loss of a valuable source of food to support the birds of coastal habitats.
There is also the possibility of increased rainfall, especially in the south and south-east areas. It is predicted that certain red data book species in Gillingham and the surrounding towns would disappear—for example, the lizard orchid, a species to be found in Kent and, in particular, on the Darland banks in the southern part of my constituency. Various butterflies are equally vulnerable, along with the bush cricket, which is predominantly found within the Medway and Thames estuaries.
At its simplest level, the link to population levels is clearest—the more people there are, the higher the emissions are likely to be. The more we alter land use patterns and associated vegetation, the more we add to our problems of water run-off and pollution levels. That is why we must take local control of our local environment. It is no good local authorities issuing planning briefs for areas that allow development surrounded by patches of natural environment, supposedly to maintain ecological balance, only to allow substantial infilling on those areas a few years later. All too often, we see good intentions thrown out of the window.
In Rainham, at the eastern end of my constituency, a windfall site has occurred since the county council decided that it was no longer required for its intended use. It is a wedge of unspoilt land which runs between highly developed and populated areas. To walk through it takes us back to the Rainham of 40 or 50 years ago—orchards, open space teaming with wildlife and an important natural and undisturbed habitat for many species. It is important to the people of Rainham as an escape from the demands

of everyday life. There is now a battle to save it from the developer's bulldozers. Clearly, we must take in hand our own concerns.
The House needs Kyoto to deliver, and the people of Gillingham need it to deliver. A protocol containing legally binding commitments for industrialised countries will have to be adopted. We fully support our Government's objective of reducing CO2, emissions to 20 per cent. of 1990 levels by 2010. In setting that objective, they are showing leadership to those who are less willing to respect our climate, notably the United States and Japan. The developed, industrialised countries must not only bear responsibility for past emissions and lead the way in setting challenging targets but offer our knowledge and expertise to developing countries to help them to avoid the pitfalls of the past.
If the Government's representatives need any moral support when they attend the Kyoto conference, I assure them that they will have the good will of the people of Gillingham. During the general election campaign, apart from education and health environmental issues were a serious concern among voters in Gillingham. As Gillingham's Member of Parliament since May, I have had to deal with a number of environmental issues.
I hope that I have explained the importance to the people of Gillingham of what some might regard as an irrelevant conference in a far-flung part of the world. I am sure that what is relevant for my constituents is relevant for all of us in the United Kingdom. We look forward to success in Kyoto.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) on his excellent maiden speech. Unfortunately, time prevents me from following up his points in detail, but the House looks forward to hearing from him again.
I congratulate also the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing the debate. I deplore the fact that the Government have not made their own time available for such a debate. The request that I made at business questions three weeks ago was refused. Since then, the House has more than once addressed such internal issues as modernisation.
I much regret that, only two weeks before Kyoto, the Government have declined to explain in any detail to the House their position on the issues that the conference will address, and have denied many hon. Members—including some who would have liked to speak in this debate—an opportunity to express their views to the House. The Government's refusal does not sit easily with their claims to be seeking greater accountability and openness in the processes of government, and to be committed to environmental ideals. It rather provokes the suspicion that their green commitments are more about soundbites than about substance—although the Minister for the Environment will have the chance to correct that impression when he replies.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that climate change is one of the most crucial and urgent issues facing Governments around the world. It is crucial because the science is clear; human activity is affecting the world's climate. It is urgent because the longer that Governments in any part of the world delay acting, the more drastic, expensive and disruptive the solutions and the action will


have to be. Many people—most people, I think—now realise that sustainable development is a goal whose achievement is essential for the world's survival. I hope that even my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is close to accepting that point.
Passing on to our children and grandchildren a world that is as good as the one that we inherited depends on sustainable development and addressing climate change. The damage that climate change could do to the world—a world that future generations will inhabit—is not dissimilar to the damage that could be inflicted by nuclear weapons. The damage is perhaps less immediate and less threatening to the short-term survival of the human race, but the long-term consequences for the earth are no less far reaching.
Climate change is not accurately described by the phrase global warming, and it is not only about an agreeable Mediterranean climate coming to these shores. Even within the United Kingdom, many of the consequences of climate change will not be pleasant. There will be severe droughts in parts of the country, including the south-east and East Anglia. There will be more violent storms, and serious consequences for farming, tourism and insurance. Some coastline will be threatened. For the world, the consequences are, of course, much more far-reaching. The very survival of some low-lying territories, where millions of people live, is under immediate threat.
Britain has had a distinguished role in the issue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, North did not have the grace to acknowledge the previous Government's record.

Ms Walley: rose—

Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady had much longer to speak than I have, and I cannot give way.
From the time when Margaret Thatcher forced the issue on to the agenda of the world's Heads of Government, Britain has been at the forefront of the debate. Leadership has never been more needed than now. Expectations of what will come out of Kyoto are running high. Public interest is greater than it has been for several years, and the importance of a good settlement is widely recognised.
However, there are two dangers. The first is that the overall target that is decided at Kyoto will be too lax. There will be a risk if the United States influence at Kyoto is too great. We simply cannot defer for another 12 years the timetable for achieving the Rio targets.
The second danger is greater and, more subtle can be summed up in the word flexibility. A good headline target for cutting emissions by 2010—perhaps to 10 per cent. below 1990 levels—could be rendered valueless if the small print contains too many loopholes. If such loopholes are included in an agreement, Kyoto's contribution to averting continued and damaging climate change will be as effective as Munich's contribution, in 1938, to averting war in Europe. A fudged deal in Kyoto will be worse than no deal at all.
I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that Britain will resist any proposal allowing countries such as Russia—whose emissions have fallen sharply since 1990, because of economic collapse—to take credit for those falls, and to sell those credits to other countries under emission trading arrangements which may be established early in the next century.
Will the Minister also clarify the Government's attitude to New Zealand's proposal to use gross emissions as the 1990 baseline figure, which would allow some countries to take credit for reductions resulting from the existence of carbon sinks, although those sinks already existed in 1990?
Above all, will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the fine print of the Kyoto agreement is as important as the headline target?
The Government's target of a 20 per cent. cut by 2010 has my full support. The European Union target of a 15 per cent. cut also has my full support. I hope that, in the next six months, the Government will use the presidency of the Council of Ministers to stick to that 15 per cent. target, whatever the outcome of the Kyoto negotiations. Will the Minister confirm today that both those targets will remain, even if—as is very likely—Kyoto settles for less challenging figures?
There is growing evidence that people and businesses in advanced countries are prepared for challenging targets. Business increasingly recognises the potential opportunities of accepting the actions that are necessary to tackle climate change. I congratulate BP on pulling out of the Global Climate Coalition in the United States, and on its forward-looking approach to climate change issues. I hope that Shell will follow in its footsteps. I welcome moves by both those great energy companies to step up their efforts in solar energy. Eventually, we may persuade even Exxon to see the light.
Does the Minister understand that, if Britain is to offer the necessary leadership and to continue exercising influence, merely announcing challenging targets is not enough? There must be, and as soon as possible, details of the policies that will enable those targets to be achieved. I regret that they have not already been spelt out. 
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, new policies will be needed. Even if the Minister does not want to gives us details of those policies today, confirmation of some broad principles would be helpful.
For example, will the Minister confirm that coal's contribution in power generation must continue to decline? In transport, will he confirm that market instruments, rather than regulation, will be the main way in which emission reductions are achieved? Will those instruments include, for example, variable rates of vehicle excise duty, to encourage cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars?
Will the Minister confirm that tax changes that are introduced to tackle climate change will be revenue neutral? Environmental goals must not be a smokescreen behind which the Government raise revenue. The model of the landfill tax, where all the proceeds of a new tax on pollution were used to cut the tax on jobs, should continue to be followed.
Finally, the Opposition will not let go of the issue of climate change after the Kyoto conference; it is far too important. We shall continue to monitor the Government's future action. The verdict so far is that the rhetoric has been good but the action disappointing, especially as the tax on energy consumption has been cut, but the tax on energy saving has been maintained at a much higher level. I hope that the Minister recognises that the more he says today about the Government's policies, the louder Britain's voice will be at Kyoto next month.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have has an excellent debate which shows the House at its best. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on obtaining the debate. I thank her for introducing it in a positive, generous and elegant manner. I agree that she has raised what is arguably one of the greatest environmental issues currently facing the world.
I shall cover as much ground as I can in very little time and respond briefly to some of the points that have been raised. We are concerned about the domestic measures to deliver our targets and reduce road traffic. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced the 6 per cent. fuel price escalator, and we are currently putting through the House regulations to increase local authorities' traffic management powers for that purpose. We are also concerned about the contribution of aviation fuel to greenhouse gas emissions. The EU is in favour of an international tax and we are looking to the United States, among others, for support.
We are certainly in favour of extending energy-saving measures. Standards of performance have been provided by the electricity regulator since 1994, but not by the gas regulator, so we shall address that. I am concerned about the reducing budget for the Energy Saving Trust, as it does an excellent job. Of course, we inherited public expenditure totals to which we are keeping, but a comprehensive spending review is being undertaken in Departments precisely to see whether we can redistribute money into key areas. I am also keen to see the development of clean coal technology. 
I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) said in an amusing, enjoyable and well-informed maiden speech. I thought that I knew Gillingham and the Medway pretty well, but I have learnt a great deal more about its history from my hon. Friend. I endorse what he said and thank him for his support for our policies in respect of integrated transport, energy efficiency at home and environmental taxes. The House should have regard to what he said about the effects of greenhouse gas warming on rising sea levels, not just in Bangladesh or the Maldives, but in parts of the United Kingdom such as the Medway marshes. 
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), in a stimulating speech, seemed to be representing the car industry or the Global Climate Coalition. She should recognise that, although, as she said, traffic emissions represent only 25 per cent. of United Kingdom CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions represent 81 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, traffic emissions represent about 20 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions. It is a substantial figure which we cannot ignore.
The hon. Lady raised a number of scientific points that some might consider as debunking the conventional wisdom. I understand her point about the effects of the sun and the Milankovich cycles, about the effect of El Nino, which is now more frequent and more violent and may have some connection with the effects of global warming and vulcanism, what happened at Mount Pinatubo and other factors. However, it is fair to say that the balance of evidence is strongly against her and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which comprises 2,500 scientists and experts from around

the world, believes that the evidence clearly suggests a discernible anthropogenic effect on the climate. We have to accept that and act on it. 
I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for his fine comments and I share nearly all his concerns. It is a little early to expect all Government Departments to have clear targets. As he said, we have been in office for only a short time. However, the White Paper that we shall issue in the spring will include energy-saving and transport-saving plans for each Department and targets that they will have to achieve. I accept his point—I am on the record as referring to it before the election—about the desirability of synchronising VAT on energy and energy-saving materials. A Customs and Excise review is under way, looking at precisely that point. 
Before I turn to the main part my speech, let me at last refer to the speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). We have heard two speeches from Opposition Members which seem to be diametrically opposed. This is one of the rare occasions when I agree with the remarks of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, rather than the speech of a Back Bencher. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about superheating in Russia. Of course, it is perfectly sensible that there should be joint implementation so that Russia is able to grow using the latest technology and that it should be able to obtain credits for that. However, there must be emphasis on the restructuring of domestic economies. Flexibility and joint implementation are meant to strengthen those targets and not be a substitute for them.
We are concerned about carbon sinks. The EU has yet to take a final decision, but the entire world has seen the fires in Indonesia and the destruction of the forests which sequestrate carbon and the increase in CO2 that forest fires produce. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we need to be careful about how we write that into the protocol, if we do.
On the hon. Member's important point about the EU, following Kyoto—assuming that it is a success—there will be a new burden-sharing arrangement to be agreed at the first EU Environment Council in March, when Britain will have the presidency. We shall also maintain our domestic target of a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions. Our first commitment is to achieve our legally binding commitment, as agreed at Kyoto, but, in time, we will go beyond that to achieve our own domestic target.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that we had not set out the details of our policies. We have not had a great deal of time, but the delivery mechanisms will be set out in detail in our White Paper in the spring.
We were elected on a manifesto commitment to lead the international fight against global warming. It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is a matter of soundbites. Although we have made substantial progress already on delivering that promise, a successful outcome to Kyoto is far from assured. We shall certainly do everything within our powers. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be engaged in extensive international consultation involving much travelling over the next fortnight precisely to exert diplomatic pressure where we can.
As I said, we have committed ourselves to a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. The Prime Minister restated his support for action in a speech to the United Nations. I should make it clear that I believe that


the previous Administration had a good reputation on climate change. Indeed, to be fair, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said that. I pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State. The problem was that he was not backed up by his Cabinet colleagues; he did not have the support of the rest of the Government. That is what is so different this time. The whole Government are behind our objectives.
As others have said, global warming will not be as attractive a prospect as some may believe. Yes, there may be more long, hot summers, more alfresco dinner parties and warmer winters, as we are seeing, but the reality in future will be very different if we do nothing. There will be more rain, frequent floods, more storms, hurricanes and disasters, and diseases such as malaria will certainly reappear. Prime agricultural land will begin to disappear under the waves, and if the Gulf stream shifts, which could well happen, we could certainly face a much colder climate—perhaps more like Siberia than the south of France.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.

Oxford and Cambridge College Fees

11 am

Dr. Evan Harris: A story runs that only in Oxford would one hear a snatched conversation between two people walking down the street, in which one is saying to the other, "And ninthly." The House will be pleased to know that, although I have a number of points to make, I shall not tax its patience or my numeracy by matching that caricature.
I should begin by making clear what I shall not be speaking about. I shall not be claiming that Oxford and Cambridge are the only two excellent universities. Indeed, I would mention that, in many of our leading universities, departments across a range of subjects rival and even exceed the quality found in Oxford and Cambridge. I hope that Members will not spend time this morning arguing that point, which I think has already been conceded.
This debate allows discussion on how we can improve access to excellence in teaching and research. It does not concern privilege or elitism in any sense other than we would wish to help to produce an academic elite just as we would artistic, cultural and sporting innovators and leaders. There is no reason why the term "elite" should be one of abuse, providing that there are opportunities for all members of society with the right gifts and talents to access the means by which they may excel.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman spell out to the Government the limited range of practical steps for many colleges if the fee that the Government pay is abolished or substantially reduced and if they are not allowed to resume the charging of private fees? As he will point out, such options are stark. Colleges could close, they could scale down their activities to the level that their endowment and university-derived income provides, or they could substantially increase the number of full fee-paying overseas students. Does he agree that the Government would be well advised to cut out egalitarian dogma and focus on practical implications?

Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Although I shall not necessarily imply that I believe that that is what the Government are doing, I shall turn to some of the options for universities if they are faced with a cut in income of any kind, specifically the potential cut in college-fee income. Access is at the heart of the debate, and I shall return to it later.
The current review is being conducted because the Dearing report said that any funding differentials between different educational establishments should be reviewed with a view to maintaining higher levels of investment only if there is an improved difference in provision and if the state, through the Department for Education and Employment, decides that it is a good use of resources. The review is therefore welcome because it is an opportunity for Oxford and Cambridge universities to justify their additional funding.
It is right, as Lord Plant said last week in another place, that any differential funding by the state be the subject of proper scrutiny. It must be publicly justified and periodically reviewed. The review provides an opportunity to show value for money and to re-energise universities' efforts to expand access.
We must remember that the Government and parliamentarians share an interest in ensuring that nothing said here will deter state-school applicants of appropriate merit from applying to Oxford and Cambridge universities. There is a great problem with image; it is an outdated one which portrays them as caricatures and as stereotypes in the media. We must ensure that any comments that we make today can be used by people who wish to see the excellence offered at Oxford and Cambridge and other universities open to state-school applicants.
Today's debate, and the review which prompted my request for House of Commons' time to discuss it, provides a valuable opportunity to debunk the Oxbridge myths. I was educated in a Liverpool state school and trained in medicine at Oxford university so that I could go on to a career in public service—the health service initially. I am therefore anxious to eliminate the myth of Brideshead-style privilege. Broadening access and encouraging the most able from all backgrounds to apply and undergo the, albeit rigorous, selection procedures is a job for the two universities, in co-operation with the Government.
Some people will always be attracted to Oxbridge for what we might call the wrong reasons, but I am concerned with the substance rather than the fluff of what it produces. We must deprecate the fact that the press do not publish pictures of people in formal academic dress at other universities which have the same or similar ceremonies to those at Oxford and Cambridge and approximately the same number of annual occasions. I want to move away from the associated image of gilded youth and dreaming spires.
The Government are right to be taking advice and seeking information from various sources, including the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which has been asked to give a view. We should, however, remember that the funding council has a relatively narrow remit to look only at funding issues, and then only within its terms of operation, which is generally to even out funding. The Government must not allow any reduction in funding to be implemented without proper consideration of Oxbridge's place and role in what the Prime Minister likes to call "the big picture".
Our secondary education system is severely damaged. The state sector achieves relatively poor results compared with private and grammar schools. People have made great play of the apparent wider access to universities in former days, but that was of course before the huge expansion in private secondary school education over past decades, when grammar schools moved into the private sector.
We have also seen a huge expansion in the number of assisted places. The figures that Oxbridge collects—the only universities to publish them—will include people who, in the 1960s, would have attended state grammar schools and who come from all backgrounds, especially lower socio-economic groups. We must remember that, until recently, such people did not progress through assisted places. 
Problems with access—the ratio of state to privately educated students at Oxford and Cambridge is approximately 50:50—together with the British tendency

to associate the word "elite" with class privilege, has skewed our perceptions of excellence in higher education. The French have no problem with the concept of an elite, and pour far more money than we do into students who attend the top higher education institutions—the grandes ecoles. Since the French have a totally egalitarian state secondary school system that works, their elite is meritocratic. We need to move more quickly toward that ideal, as I am sure the Government would agree, by broadening access to the best institutions and not by homogenising or levelling down.
The Government have spoken of their commitment to excellence in, for example, their intention to create centres of excellence and special training facilities for tomorrow's sporting heroes. I hope that they can work with Oxford and Cambridge to ensure that those two training grounds for exceptional academic ability continue to lead the world and draw on all British talents. 
Oxford and Cambridge are world-class institutions, in the top 10 on any measure of merit, and unique in Europe for being able to compete with and match the standards of the great American universities in both teaching and research across a broad subject range. Alone in Europe, Oxford and Cambridge can compete with Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Yale, Princeton, Chicago and California. Penicillin was discovered in an Oxford laboratory and DNA in a Cambridge physics department. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is present, and look forward to her contribution to the debate.
Through their work, the universities indirectly contribute to the standing of this country in arts and science, and of course to the work of other universities in cross-fertilisation of ideas and personnel. Of the university professors listed in "Who's Who", a majority have been through Oxford or Cambridge—especially for an early part of their research career.
The extra college fee income must be seen to be used to maintain quality, not for other purposes. That extra fee income is used by Oxford and Cambridge to provide a unique teaching system and extensive research capabilities, all in the context of a collegiate structure.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extra resources would be more acceptable if the price extracted for them was wider availability for ordinary bright children to go to Oxford and Cambridge?

Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I shall deal with later. It is at the nub of the argument. The fee will not be perceived as value for money unless it is used to provide wider access to Oxford and Cambridge for all socio-economic groups than applies at present. The funding is used to deliver excellence and quality in the collegiate system. I do not claim that one-to-one tutorials are the norm or the only way of teaching, but the collegiate structure and the community of learning make those places different and contribute to the excellence that is provided. 
Dearing specified that there should be diversity in Britain's higher education. Oxbridge offers unique features that must not be sacrificed on the altar of a fallacious definition of equality. The Dearing report says:
 "We do not believe that students in the future will see themselves simply as customers of higher education but as members of a learning community." 


Oxbridge has cross-subject communities. That experience should be held up as an ideal. Those who sit on the Labour Benches in another place have said that, from teaching in other universities and consulting universities abroad, they have found that Oxford and Cambridge are a model on which many institutions abroad base their teaching methods.
College-based university life provides unique opportunities to interface between disciplines, which leads to unusual and exceptional achievements. The discovery of DNA was a biology problem solved in the physics department at Cambridge. If Britain loses a precious asset such as Cambridge science—there is great fear and danger that, should the fee be reduced—Microsoft's recent valuable inward investment package may not be repeated. Indeed, the standing of British universities may never recover.
It is not strictly correct to say that the argument is about undergraduate teaching alone. Lord Plant, from the Labour Benches in another place, has said that research in Oxford and Cambridge is embedded in a collegiate structure which is bound to be more expensive and will not survive if college fees disappear. Colleges fund research fellowships, junior research fellowships, graduate studentships and graduate scholarships from their income.
The college system is not the only way to achieve that or a template that all must follow, but where it exists there are additional benefits that compensate for additional costs. The Oxford and Cambridge college system is a fact of life that cannot be uninvented, even if it is a model that other universities would prefer not to, or could not afford to, follow.
The £35 million that goes to Oxbridge in college fees gives good value for money, helping to maintain those pre-eminent institutions and their teaching and research strengths. The money does not come from the HEFCE pool, so it is not taken directly from other universities. It is a separate item in the budget of the Department for Education and Employment, used to compensate local education authorities for paying the fees that students used to pay. The HEFCE general budget gets a clawback.
There is a danger that, if the fee were reduced, the Government would not automatically allocate the money to other universities without taking a decision to do so. While I join the Government in lamenting the drop in unit resource in universities over the years and I recognise that there is chronic underfunding in the higher education system, I do not think that they would argue that such a simplistic measure would solve all the problems facing higher education.
It is sad that so much is said about funding that is deleterious, looking at what some colleges have and saying that they should not have it simply because other universities do not. Some have said in another place that it would be no bad thing if Oxford and Cambridge colleges were to close. Such comments are unwelcome in this debate.
Academic salaries in Oxford are as low as those anywhere else in the sector. Without the senior lecturer grade that exists in other universities, many age equivalents are less well remunerated. It is sad that hon. Members may have to be reminded that college members pay from their salary for any wine that is supposedly consumed in large quantities in the colleges. I hope that we shall hear no more such nonsense and stereotypes.
There is no pot of gold on which colleges can draw to keep afloat. They cannot compensate for the withdrawal of college fees by selling their assets, as recent press coverage has suggested. Some colleges have valuable assets, but every penny earned from those assets, endowments and funds is spent on teaching research and the upkeep of libraries, laboratories and college buildings, often of great heritage value.
Christ Church in Oxford is not poor, but it funds, among other things, 16 junior research fellowships and looks after the 12th-century cathedral for the city and the nation with part of its income. The Cambridge equivalent is the King's college chapel.
Those who suggest that such colleges should sell what they have fail to distinguish between capital and revenue. By the standards of American universities, which have far larger endowments, Oxbridge is positively reckless in taking earnings of 4.6 per cent. from its investments and assets to complement the funding that it receives from the public purse. What is more, the decision in the July Budget to abolish tax relief from dividends will reduce income by about 10 per cent. I make no comment about the appropriateness of that decision.
If assets are sold, there will not be the income to match—indeed, more than match—the public subsidy. The situation is a superb example of a public-private partnership. The colleges, which are private institutions, more than match, for the same purposes, the funding provided by the state in the college fee.

Dr. Brian Iddon: In arguing for the preservation of the elitism of Oxbridge, I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that we should improve access by developing an egalitarian state school system. Is he advocating the abolition of the public school system?

Dr. Harris: I am asking that we improve standards in the state sector—a policy that I believe the Government to be committed to. We have supported moving the subsidy previously used for assisted places to the state sector. That will allow higher quality from the state sector. The current lack of applications from good state sector candidates, for reasons that I have already mentioned, is the biggest problem in our attempts to ensure a better ratio of state to private and overseas students.

Mr. Phil Willis: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the crux of the issue? Unless targets for admissions from the state sector are set for Oxford and Cambridge, it is unlikely that anything will change. Does he agree that part of the package to justify the extra £35 million must be positive steps on that and agreed targets to redress the balance?

Dr. Harris: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the universities welcome the Government's initiative in seeking the review. Many proposals have been put forward to expand further the work done on access from the state sector to those two universities.

Mr. Robert Jackson: That is all well and good, but will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that a substantial proportion of A-levels go to pupils from independent schools? As long as Oxford and Cambridge are seeking to attract the brightest and ablest students,


which must be part of their mission, it is inevitable that they will choose from the pool of people with A-levels. Regrettably, the performance of the state sector is such that a high proportion of A-levels go to children from independent schools.

Dr. Harris: I am afraid that I must disagree. There are clever people in all sectors of education, but we do not get a sufficient number of applications from the state sector. A-level results are not necessarily the best way of judging whether people are bright.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that Oxbridge merely accepts the students who are best prepared, not necessarily the brightest students; and that that is why so many of them are from the public school sector?

Dr. Harris: Yes, but recent changes in Oxbridge admission procedures have attempted to tackle that. Certainly Oxford—and I think Cambridge too—interviews far more people for each place than does any other university, so as to ensure that what appears on paper, perhaps reflecting good preparation, does not disguise people's ability or rule out those with great potential from the state sector. Often ability will emerge better in an interview—but more remains to be done.
Removing college fees will inevitably damage access, either because colleges will have to reintroduce charges to the student that are no longer made up for by LEAs, or because colleges will have to put up room and board costs, or because they will have to admit a greater number of paying—and hence wealthier—overseas students. The universities do not want to start charging students fees which the Government currently pay, but that is the next alternative open to them as independent institutions.
If the Government want to prevent the Oxbridge colleges from taking this step under the duress of the removal of the fee money by the DFEE, that will involve complex and time-consuming hybrid legislation. As the Bishop of Oxford said in another place, it would be sad if, as a result of Government legislation, Oxford and Cambridge became a club for the relatively well-off, with all that that would imply for future jobs and careers and the accentuation of a worse kind of elitism.
Of course Oxbridge has always charged college fees. Until 1962, scholarship students there had their fees paid by the state, but all others paid the extra money. But then legislation passed on the costs to the LEAs for all UK undergraduates. The LEAs were then able to recoup the costs from the Treasury. If the Government remove funding for the college fee system, the colleges will have to find students who can afford to pay the fees themselves, and that in turn will further damage access. Indeed, the effect would be the very opposite of what the proposal is intended to achieve.

Mr. David Heath: Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that, if the Government persist with their wrong-headed decision to introduce tuition fees, not only will such fees increase across the board in time but differentials will open up between various places of learning? In the end, Oxbridge

and the medical and veterinary colleges will be completely out of reach of ordinary people and will turn into truly elite institutions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I remind the House yet again that this is a very short debate? A number of those who have intervened are also, I believe, seeking to catch my eye later; they should hear in mind that their interventions take time away from their own speeches.

Dr. Harris: There is certainly great concern that up-front fees—or up-front debts—may deter people from higher education and from taking less well remunerated jobs in the public sector. The Government are grappling with such difficulties, but I will not dwell on the subject today. Suffice it to say that we all deprecate additional up-front fees, even with means testing administered by colleges, as the worst of all worlds.
Critics of Oxbridge call for modernisation. There is a great deal of room for improvement in the crucial area of access; but people must realise that removing the college fee would achieve the opposite of what they want. If colleges cannot charge their students for the fee, the first ones to go bankrupt or to go private will be the newer, poorer colleges, many of which are women's colleges—the only remaining state women's colleges in Britain. Surely the continuation of such arrangements would be in line with the spirit of Dearing, which requires the fostering of diversity.
The women's colleges and the more recently founded colleges do not possess land or inherited wealth, and have far smaller endowments and fewer assets. A good example would be Somerville college in Oxford, where the college fee money provides one third of the college's total income. It is spent entirely on academic stipends.
Removing some or all of the fee will have serious consequences for jobs and the local economies of both cities, with redundancies and associated costs in academic, administration and ancillary posts. Such action would contribute to the brain drain. Talented British academics would leave for postings overseas, especially in the USA. The loss of the fee would also undermine the general economic health of the two cities. Oxford University employs 10,500 people, of whom 3,000 are college non-academic staff. That is to say nothing of those employed by the companies and institutions that flock to these cities to be close to the universities.
Colleges maintain their historic buildings and collections without heritage grants. The Bodleian library has just had its application for a restoration project rejected by those who make the decisions on lottery awards. This investment by the universities in heritage feeds into the lucrative year-round tourist trade, which also generates jobs. In this sense Oxford and Cambridge are industrial cities whose main industry is education, based in and around the universities. Damaging those universities would threaten the economic well-being of a large part of the population.
The Liberal Democrats will support Government moves to provide high-quality mass education and to support our existing centres of excellence, with open admission procedures based on merit and talent. I hope that some of my arguments this morning, especially those about the need to improve broad access, have demonstrated


the place held by Oxford and Cambridge in this vision. I further hope that Members who enjoyed and benefited from an Oxbridge education after leaving state schools, as I did, will not adopt a drawbridge mentality. We must be keen to maximise opportunity for those who come after us; we must retain the college fee coupled with a requirement to improve access and to show value for money.
I close with a statement by Lord Winston, who said that he joined the Labour party because he believed in a fair society, but, he said, a fair society does not mean that people are equal in every respect. We are talking about truly outstanding institutions which are models of university education not merely in this country but throughout the world. Academic institutions throughout Britain are extremely fragile. We might damage something which in turn could damage our national economy.
These universities are brand leaders in British higher education. If they fall, the reputation of British higher education will be damaged. I hope that the Minister's response today will be as constructive as the spirit in which I have attempted to deal with these difficult issues.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for raising this issue and congratulate him on gaining the time in which to do so.
I am proud to represent a university that has contributed so much success to academic endeavour and excellence. Most of us are proud to live in a country that can still achieve world firsts—a country renowned for its contributions to science and technology as well as the arts and humanities. We should celebrate our nation's success: it increases our self-confidence and self-esteem, and it leads us to greater achievements in the future.
One thinks of some of the people who studied at Cambridge—Isaac Newton, Watson and Crick, Rutherford and J. J. Thompson. They all achieved their remarkable success at Cambridge university. Cambridge has also shaped the arts and humanities by giving us people such as F. R. Leavis, Rupert Brooke, Ted Hughes, Maynard Keynes, Wittgenstein, Joan Robinson and Ian McKellen.
The briefing prepared by Cambridge for Members of Parliament stated that Cambridge had won 68 Nobel prizes, but since that briefing was prepared Cambridge has won another one for molecular biology. That is surely a record to be proud of.
Oxbridge's contribution to our economy is difficult to assess, although needless to say it is pervasive. Among its better known graduates are the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, many Members of Parliament, including me, captains of industry, senior civil servants, professional people, actors, journalists and many others—all of them sport a Cambridge or Oxford MA after their names.
The contribution to the local economy is much easier to measure. About 30,000 people are employed in 1,000 technology-based firms in and around Cambridge, in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Most of those companies say that the university is one of the main reasons for locating in the area or that it is the basis for their existence.
A wide range of expertise is represented, from telecommunications, in firms such as lonica and Cambridge Cable; biotechnology, in firms such as Amgen, Cantab Pharmaceuticals and Peptide Therapeutics; information services, in firms such as Analysis and UUnet; computer hardware and software, in firms such as Olivetti and Xemplar, and now Microsoft, and industrial consultancy, in firms such as Cambridge Consultants and Scientific Generics. Those firms are known not just nationally but internationally as excellent in their fields.
Those companies also generate huge revenues for the Exchequer. One argument that I have heard made is that the college fee should be increased because the payback on the investment is so enormous that it justifies the initial investment. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that we should do nothing that will damage the excellence of those institutions and the national benefits which accrue from them.
That is not to argue for the status quo. It is right that Oxbridge colleges should account for the ways in which their public subsidies are spent and justify them. When every other item of expenditure is being closely examined, it would be wrong to regard Oxbridge as untouchable. Few would argue that the system could not be more efficient or effective. We have a new Government who value achievement and who set out a clear agenda for higher education in their pre-election document, "Lifelong Learning". Equal access to higher education is an important principle, on which the Labour party fought the election and which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the population.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that at the moment the system is not egalitarian. More than half the students at Oxbridge are recruited from the independent sector, which represents only 9 per cent. of the school population. For those who wish to preserve the excellence which is Oxbridge, that makes the college fee hard to defend. It means that the subsidy goes to those who have been best prepared rather than those who are the brightest and have the most ability. Although many state schools prepare students well for higher education, after 18 years of Tory mismanagement of our education system, many do not.

Mr. John Burnett: Do not Oxford and Cambridge go to a great deal of trouble in their interview process to discover not just the academic qualifications of individual candidates, but their inherent intelligence? Do they not bend over backwards in that endeavour?

Mrs. Campbell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is implying that, because the admission of students from the independent sector is more than 50 per cent. at Oxford and Cambridge, it means that students who go to the state sector are less intelligent than those who go to the independent sector, but that argument does not hold up. Oxbridge cannot make up for the defects of our state school system, but it can suit well those bright students who have underdeveloped potential. Some colleges in Cambridge have led the way—Churchill, Fitzwilliam and King's, which now admit 75 per cent. of their intake from the state sector. Those are examples which can be copied and from which we can learn.
I want to quote the example of one of my constituents who went to Cambridge from a less than privileged background. He described to me how he had been admitted to Fitzwilliam college with qualifications gained through part-time study at a technical college some 30 years ago. That was obviously an enlightened admissions tutor. He had qualifications well below the average standard of undergraduate entry. Through the efforts of his college supervisor, he quickly made up lost ground and went on to play a major role in the development of the scanning electron microscope.
Such instruments are now to be found in research laboratories throughout the world and have helped to create hundreds of thousands of jobs at Leo Electron Optics, formerly Leica, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. In addition, he started a small science park company. That shows that there has been a worthwhile return on the investment in his education, which has created so many jobs and has been of so much value to the country.
It has been said that Oxford and Cambridge do try to admit students from the state sector, but they should try harder. I was pleased to see Cambridge university's recent statement on the steps that it is taking to do just that. The recently announced target of 65 per cent. of students from the state sector is not just empty rhetoric. The proposals include a high-powered task force and a public relations campaign to encourage more clever students in state schools to consider applying; the group to encourage ethnic minority applicants will also continue, and the internal admissions procedure will be simplified and sharpened.
While I am on the subject, I want to say a little more about the excellent initiative—the target schools scheme—which I think operates in Oxford and Cambridge. It is run in Cambridge by the Cambridge university students' union. The reason I am so knowledgeable about it is that one of the people who ran the scheme, Alex King, is my researcher in the House this year. He and a number of other people organised the scheme successfully in Cambridge. Each school with a sixth form and each sixth-form college receives a 16-page prospectus aimed at state schools, and the offer of a visit from a student to encourage others to apply.
I was alarmed that last year the student union had to dip into its own resources to find £350 for a computer disk with updated information on the names of schools, head teachers and so on. I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Minister would investigate whether such information could be provided free in future by the Department for Education and Employment. It is a worthwhile cause, and students should not have to dip into their own pockets to pay for it.
I understand that there are plans to strengthen the target schools scheme and I heartily applaud those efforts. We should heartily approve of students who are prepared to give up their own time and resources in order to participate.

Mr. Willis: I am interested in many of the hon. Lady's remarks, but is not one of the barriers to greater access the gold standard of A-levels? Does she agree that, until we have a different qualification structure for 14 to

19-year-olds which is more egalitarian, we will never achieve the sort of targets that she and I, and my hon. Friends, would like to see?

Mrs. Campbell: There is a case for widening the qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds. That is something that the Labour party has been in favour of in the past. There is a misconception in many universities, and probably in Oxbridge as well, about other qualifications, such as vocational qualifications, and their intellectual value as a preparation for a degree.
In addition to all the steps that I have mentioned, Cambridge is developing further its provision for mature students. It is extending a scheme for undergraduates with low financial resources, appointing an access officer and an access task force and it is making access and admissions information available on the university website and colleges are making direct contact with teachers in more state secondary schools. A great deal is being done and I look forward to seeing the success of that in the months and years to come.
The Government are keen to promote lifelong learning, something of which I wholeheartedly approve. It is perhaps less well known that Cambridge university was a pioneer of adult and continuing education in the last century. That has continued through to this day. Currently, 15,000 students benefit from the adult programmes at Cambridge university. Professional and vocational development programmes are offered to a wide range of practitioners, including doctors, teachers and the police.
I want to touch briefly on the recently published college accounts, about which there has been a great deal in some of the Sunday papers, which show that a few colleges are particularly wealthy. Trinity is one of those that has managed its assets well, and it now has an income of around £19 million a year. It has been argued that, if redistributed, the Trinity income alone could make up the loss of the college fee. However, it is worth asking where Trinity's funds currently go and what areas would lose out if they were to be redistributed.
In addition to undergraduates, Trinity, in common with all the other colleges, has a high proportion of postgraduates and research fellows, who are funded from the college's private endowments. Trinity college also makes funds available for research—for instance, at the Newton Mathematical Institute, which scored a magnificent success when a young researcher, Andrew Wiles, discovered the proof for Fermat's last theorem. That problem had confounded mathematicians all over the world for 300 years. We should all take delight in such success, celebrate it and try to ensure that it continues.
I would guess that in the Chamber today are sceptics who believe that the £35 million could be better spent elsewhere, and I do not doubt that there is room for change. Corresponding changes in the government and structure of the university could create a better institution than the one we have at present. It does not seem sensible that the colleges and the university are funded separately from the public purse. A funding system whereby the money went directly to the university to be distributed to the colleges would lead to more efficient management of the system.
I urge the university to listen to student pleas for a more centralised welfare system. The stresses on students in a demanding hothouse atmosphere are excessive and cause


great suffering. It is time to take a more professional approach than that offered by an untrained academic acting as a tutor. I know that colleges subscribe to the university counselling service, but that is available only when students are already experiencing serious problems. Young people who are living away from home, often for the first time, require advice and guidance from professionals; they should not have to rely solely on someone who will write their references at the end of their course. Pooling resources to provide a comprehensive student welfare service, as exists in many other universities, would be beneficial.
There are those of us who regard the current review as being as much an opportunity as a threat. A review of the system will lead to improvements, regardless of the outcome of the funding review, but we should consider what would be the outcome if the college fee were to be removed completely.
Colleges would certainly react by taking in more foreign students, who would pay the sort of fees currently charged by universities in the United States. That would have knock-on effects in terms of limiting opportunities for home-grown students. Colleges might also be tempted to increase their income by charging top-up fees to home students. I am heartened by the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he would make great efforts to prevent universities and colleges from adopting that course. It would be difficult to prevent them from doing so, because they are private institutions, but no doubt ways will be found.
The consequence of such actions would not be that desired by many of my colleagues. The university would become more exclusive: there would be no incentive for colleges to take more students from poorer backgrounds and the recent gains in the percentage of state-school pupils admitted would be reversed. Oxbridge would, once again, become the exclusive home of privilege and wealth. I want everyone to be able to gain from the excellence available at Oxbridge. Bright students everywhere should be able compete for places without the fear that Oxbridge is not for them or that there is a bar to their entry. That is what the colleges want, too, and I hope that the Government will help them to achieve their aim.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am especially pleased to be called in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who made several remarks with which I agree, so I shall not delay the House by repeating them. I am grateful, as are we all, to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for having sought this timely and important debate.
As Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire, I represent two Cambridge colleges—the lesser part of Cambridge university, but the part containing the Institute of Molecular Biology; I am happy to say that, just a few weeks ago, my constituency acquired another Nobel prize winner.
I am not a graduate of either Oxford or Cambridge, although some say I would have benefited from being so. Nevertheless, that does not disqualify me from saying that I entirely concur with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that we are not talking about two centres of excellence to the exclusion of other universities. There

is much excellence to be found in Britain's higher education sector, and to say that Oxford and Cambridge occupy a special position is not to denigrate the achievements of other universities.
Oxford and Cambridge occupy a special position not only in our own education system but in the world education structure. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was right to say that they are unique within Europe and that they have a capacity to compete directly with the major United States universities. If the higher education structure in this country did not exist, the United States universities would acquire an international monopoly as centres of excellence. That would be a monopoly to be strongly deplored.
I shall restrict myself to making one or two points. First, much of the debate has been about access and admissions to Oxford and Cambridge. The hon. Member for Cambridge amply testified to Cambridge university's intention to increase further the number of students taken from state schools.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I declare an interest in that I was educated at Oxford. I am sorry that there is such a strong Oxbridge flavour to the debate this morning and I hope that hon. Members representing other parts of the country will be called to contribute later. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, when I was at Oxford in the 1960s, the ratio was about 50 per cent. private school students: 50 per cent. state system students, and that that has not changed at all over the past 30 years? The promises we keep hearing from Oxbridge ring hollow.

Mr. Lansley: The speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge gave ample testimony to the great efforts made by Oxford and Cambridge in that respect. The figures tend to mislead.

Mr. Howard Flight: A-levels.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes the point about A-levels: in so far as A-levels are a measure, it is clear that Oxford and Cambridge are being presented with many highly successful A-level students from the independent sector, but they are not restricting their efforts to attracting such students. Through the target schools scheme, many colleges are making every effort to interview applicants from the state sector in a way that identifies potential rather than simply assessing performance at A-level.

Mr. Flight: Is my hon. Friend aware that a significant proportion of Oxbridge students from independent schools went to those schools via the assisted places scheme, a fact which distorts the comparison? In addition, a number of schools that were in the state sector 30 years ago have since moved into the private sector.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not wish to debate the assisted places scheme again, but its existence has meant that the proportion of students coming to Oxford and Cambridge from the independent sector is by no means an expression of elitism, since such students may well have come from low-income households and used the assisted places route to secondary education.
I run the risk of falling into the trap against which I wish to argue, which is construing the review as being essentially about access and admissions. It is not. The review is fundamentally about value for money and the use of the resources deployed through the collegiate system in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge to achieve excellence. If, as I hope, access is improved and admissions from state schools are increased, students will not wish to be admitted to a university whose standards have not been maintained and whose methods of teaching are no longer those that once sustained those standards on an international scale.
We have to look at the use of money and resources, and on that point the arguments are clear. We are talking about one third of 1 per cent. of total expenditure on higher education—perhaps one thousandth part of spending on education in this country, but it is a one thousandth part that has a powerful influence throughout the system. Excellence breeds excellence, not only within higher education, but within the education system as a whole. The collegiate system is not simply about tutorial groups and teaching: it is integral to the research output of Oxford and Cambridge.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon made it clear that 70 per cent. of United Kingdom university professors pass through Oxford or Cambridge at some time during their academic career, so there is a spread of that excellence throughout the education system. The idea that we can have some sort of Marmite strategy and take the—

Dr. Ian Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an example of a piece of excellent research that developed solely because of the collegiate system, as opposed to research such as that on DNA, which was developed in a Medical Research Council laboratory that just happened to be sited in Cambridge?

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not attempt to give examples. I am aware that, in Cambridge generally, the ability within the multi-faculty universities and the collegiate system to relate one discipline to another has led to a cross-fertilisation of great importance.

Mr. Robert Jackson: My hon. Friend might like to refer the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) to Trinity College, Cambridge. Over 100 years of the Nobel prize, that one college has won more prizes than France.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many examples of excellence within both universities. As I have said, I am not denying the presence of excellence in other universities. There are universities where two thirds to three quarters of research departments are achieving five-star ranking. There is no lack of excellence in other universities, but we must recognize—it is a matter of perception as well as reality—that, throughout the world, there is a recognition of what Oxford and Cambridge are achieving.
We need to look at the two Dearing criteria. I am sure that hon. Members understand and accept the need for a review of the college fees system and I am sure that the

two criteria of good value for money and good use of resources are perfectly acceptable. On those two criteria there will be no difficulty sustaining the college fees system, because it does represent good value for money and is a good use of resources.
It is good for the universities in terms of what they achieve with the students who attend them. It is good for the higher education system because Oxford and Cambridge are feeding excellence and success elsewhere within higher education. It is a good use of resources in terms of our economic benefit. The hon. Member for Cambridge accurately referred to the impact on local economies, but we could look at the impact on the United Kingdom economy as a whole.
I used to be a recruiter of graduates in a highly competitive environment. I was only too well aware of the aptitude and skills of those Oxford and Cambridge graduates. I am sure that that was due in no small part to the fact that they were not just graduates in a particular discipline, but had an awareness of other disciplines through the collegiate system. The combination of a residential collegiate system and a tutorial system is important, and it has had substantial benefits in our higher education system. It is important to sustain it.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am not a representative of either an Oxford or a Cambridge constituency, but I have an interest in the debate because I am a governor of the London School of Economics and I have a daughter at Jesus College, Cambridge and a daughter who has attended Pembroke College.
There needs to be a breath of fresh air in a debate that recognises that there is a real crisis in higher education. That crisis has been caused by chronic underfunding over 18 years under the previous Government. Pay in the higher education sector is appalling. I do not believe the argument about the brain drain, but I do believe that some people with excellent qualifications do not want to stay on in higher education because they can slip into the City or into occupations that pay two or three times more than professorial salaries within just a short time.
There is a crisis with our elite institutions. I believe that we will always have elite institutions in higher education and that we must have world-class institutions. However, I do not think that Oxford and Cambridge are quite as good as they think they are. If they measure themselves against the best in the United States, they will see that they have been falling behind for a long time. They need to buck up their ideas about how they organise themselves and how they attract high-quality researchers and students. They need to do that using all the talents in our country.
As I said, 1 am a governor of the LSE. We have real problems there. As a result of the cuts over the past 18 years, more than 50 per cent. of our students now come from overseas. More people come to the LSE from the public school sector than many Oxford and Cambridge colleges. That is happening increasingly in a group of elite universities and colleges across the country. It is a real


crisis. We must decide that we need to have some world-class institutions and then provide the funds for them.

Mr. Lansley: rose—:

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
I am willing to see extra resources flowing to Oxford and Cambridge if we get something for it. I do not believe that, over the years that they have had that extra funding, we have seen enough of an effort to change the way in which they recruit talented students. I have been talking to some of the people involved in recruitment in the colleges. They were talking about the 50:50 split which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) said, has not changed for a long time.
The recruiters would say that we should look more closely at what parts of the state sector the students come from; it is not the average comprehensive such as those in my constituency but an exclusive group of schools in the state sector. I believe that, because of the cosy arrangements that Oxford and Cambridge colleges have with specific schools in both the state and the private sector, many talented young people are losing out. Many of them are just as able as those already at Oxford or Cambridge.
We talk about public schools having good results, but I am afraid that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) has lost the argument here. I often agree with the hon. Gentleman about education, but he is losing it on this one. An examination of where the children are coming from reveals that talented children are not getting sufficient opportunities. We need to spread their abilities. Rather than stimulating talent, enterprise and so on, I believe that Oxford and Cambridge are stifling them. They stifle the talent of people coming from other institutions. We need to open up Oxford and Cambridge and the other universities to talent. That is a real challenge.
We must make sure that we fund higher education properly and that we have a proper strategy. I do not think that that is contained in Dearing. The House must debate this issue far more widely otherwise our higher education institutions—Oxford, Cambridge, the LSE and many others—will have a dismal future. I am sure that our Government and our Minister will have some of the answers today.

Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on calling for the debate. I remind the House that it is specifically about whether Oxbridge meets the requirements under the definition of approved difference for a relatively modest sum of £35 million of additional funding.
I have talked to many of my contacts in America, India and Europe and they ask whether this country has gone mad. They cannot understand the wish to attack our two leading academic institutions. We have heard evidence from many hon. Members of the contribution made by those universities, which includes 69 Nobel prizes. I would have thought that Microsoft arriving at

Cambridge is just the latest recognition of what has been achieved. We know what the economic impact is, and the tourist impact.
We are talking about two traditional institutions of excellence. To threaten them with severe damage and the eventual prospect of going independent for the sake of £35 million would be an act of levelling madness.
In the case of Cambridge, it is argued that the colleges have their own endowment income. What would be the impact of the proposed reduction in college funding? Of a total endowment income of about £65 million, one third relates to one college, Trinity; another third relates to five colleges only; and the final third covers a spread of 23 colleges. Those 23 colleges could not exist, as they are without the college funding that they receive.
Colleges exist, first, to provide tutorial instruction. Their second great asset is that they provide homes and finance for research fellows. If the £35 million is lost, there may be some scope for sharing funding, but 23 Cambridge colleges—the overwhelming majority—will be forced to change their arrangements.
Unless this country becomes Stalinist, it will not be possible for the Government to prevent the universities from rendering additional charges. I am advised that the European courts would take the view that the Government would not be permitted to restrict them under European Union law.
By contemplating a reduction in funding, we have foolishly raised the possibility of Oxford and Cambridge considering going independent. Those universities have been Labour supporters; now they feel that they have been stabbed in the back. They have attempted to broaden admissions—

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there should be no review of the college fee?

Mr. Flight: The colleges' income can certainly be reviewed, but in terms of hard finance, the sum of £1,700 per pupil is required by the collegiate system to function as it does at present. At Cambridge—and the situation is not much different at Oxford—23 colleges would have to change their structure enormously if that source of income were lost.
I do not believe that the Government, who have presented themselves to the nation as sensible, moderate and reasonable, seriously wish to destroy the academic excellence of Oxford and Cambridge, which is the envy of the world, and is a great maker of our relationships and contacts and a generator of business around the world—there are, for example, 3,000 Indian members of Cambridge throughout the world.
I do not believe that the Government want to propel those two institutions down a path that may mean that they ultimately become entirely independent, like Harvard. It would be an act of madness, and undesirable. For the reasons outlined by other hon. Members, I am sure that the Government will change their mind. Under the approved difference definition, there is no reason for restricting the level of finance at those institutions.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I came to the debate merely to listen, and totally unprepared to make a contribution, but I feel that there must be a balance in the debate on behalf of the scores of other universities, one of which I worked at.


I must declare an interest. I was not educated at either Oxford or Cambridge. My degrees were obtained from the university of Hull, but I have worked in a collegiate university, Durham, so I know something about the collegiate system; I have examined and lectured at both Oxford and Cambridge, and visited many other universities throughout the country in my career in the university system.
When Oxbridge is under attack—boy, how it can react, and throughout the entire establishment. It plants people in the very House that makes all the important decisions. That is what the debate has been about this morning.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) seems to be confused about the difference between excellence and privilege. I challenged him to tell me whether, in arguing for an egalitarian state system, he could identify with the abolition of the public school system, but all that he could talk about was assisted places. In entering this debate on the record, he has been fighting to protect the privilege of two outstanding universities.

Dr. Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to answer that. Does he agree that it is not the fault of Oxford and Cambridge that we have had a Conservative Government underfunding higher education for 18 years, damaging the state secondary sector for 18 years and bringing about a situation where a greater proportion of applicants to Oxford and Cambridge come from the private sector, which has been expanded? That is not the fault of Oxford and Cambridge. I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree with me that efforts must be made to improve access, but that must be done through putting resources into the state sector, and scrapping assisted places, so that applicants come through the state sector. I agree with him on that.

Dr. Iddon: Yes, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are other ways of improving access to those two universities. Protecting the public school system is not the way to do it. As has been said, the public school system is well prepared to get its pupils into both those universities. Some schools in the state sector have learnt how to do it, but the vast majority of schools in the state sector are not prepared, as those institutions have been prepared in the past, to get their pupils into the Oxbridge system.
It is amazing to hear the Conservatives arguing for the continuation of the privileges of the Oxbridge system. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that the previous Government did more damage to the university system than any preceding Government could even have contemplated doing.
For 33 years I have been teaching at the university of Salford. In the early 1980s we received a letter in July of a given year announcing a 46 per cent. cut in the funding of Salford university, which was doing excellent work in science and technology. That cut was for a single year. The cuts that Oxford and Cambridge experienced in that year were trivial by comparison, and I mean trivial. The effects of cuts in the funding of Oxford and Cambridge and the other elite universities have been trivial by comparison with the effects of the cuts imposed on universities such as Aston, Bradford, Salford and scores of others.
I accept that the previous Government damaged the university system immensely. The present Government will find it extremely difficult to get back to where we were in 1979, when those cuts started.
I refer to the teaching at Oxford and Cambridge through the collegiate system and the excellent tutorial system. I know what goes on in those tutorials: small groups of students—five or six—face to face with an excellent teacher is an excellent method for the transfer of knowledge.
I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that in some universities now, tutorials have disappeared entirely from the university system. At the university of Salford, we adopted a similar system, where we had face-to-face contact with five or six students, and we transferred our knowledge in the same excellent manner. However, when I left the university of Salford to join the House of Commons on 1 May, we were trying to conduct tutorials—I did not regard them as tutorials any longer—with groups of students as large as 15.
If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon wants to argue for the continuation of protected privilege for those two universities, I want him to tell us how the Government should be reversing the situation that has arisen in the other universities. I cannot agree that such privileges should be protected when the system has become so bad for the vast majority of other universities. I am arguing for the hundreds of thousands of students who are suffering as a result. In other words, I am trying to strike a balance.
It was a great mistake for the previous Government to convert all the polytechnics into universities in one fell swoop. I say that as someone who used to be on the staff of a college of advanced technology at Salford, which had to fight to become a university. It was necessary to prove excellence in all subjects that were taught at what was the college. I accept that some of the polytechnics were worthy of university status, but some were not.
Against the background of decisions taken by the previous Government, we are in danger of creating an ivy league of universities, of which Oxford and Cambridge would obviously be members. There must be the same provision throughout the university sector and we must seek to achieve generally what Oxford and Cambridge have tried to achieve in the absence of privilege and other knock-on effects,
Academic salaries are low compared with professional salaries elsewhere. When I became a Member of this place my salary increased by more than £10,000. Before coming here I was a reader in chemistry at Salford university. That must be wrong. In my view, the two professions are comparable. After all, I have done both jobs. Academic salaries are low, and I blame the previous Government for that.
I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that to continue the privileged teaching methods of Oxford and Cambridge, the college fellowships pay those who conduct the tutorial teaching systems extra money. That privilege—let us underline "privilege" —is not available to academic staff in most other British universities. I must accuse the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon of trying to protect privilege and not excellence.
The hon. Gentleman made the claim that penicillin was a discovery of Oxford university. I accept that Florey and Chain developed penicillin at Oxford university and that
their contribution was excellent. However, Alexander Fleming saw the effects of penicillum notatum on bacilli and made the observation in London in a dingy basement laboratory. If it had not been for that observation in London, Oxford would not have been able to develop penicillin.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Like the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I came into the Chamber to listen. The hon. Gentleman spoke, however, and he went on about privilege. I was at Oxford university, and some may say that I was very privileged. When I was there the number of students coming up year on year from state schools was rising. What has stopped that happening? The answer is the argument that is now being advanced against Oxbridge, and that is an attack on excellence. In the 1960s and 1970s there was an attack on excellent grammar schools. I accept that some comprehensive schools are first-class but it should never have been a matter of also trying to ensure that grammar schools enjoyed no privilege—the "let's get rid of them" approach.
At that time hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including some on the Front Benches, had been to grammar schools. They are now prepared to deny good-quality education to children for reasons of ideology.
Oxford and Cambridge are not basic bastions of privilege. Indeed, they are often bastions of left-wing thought. Many of those who taught me would disagree with me fundamentally on many issues. I say to all those who seek to bring down Oxford and Cambridge for ideological reasons that they should remember that both are excellent institutions of world renown. Other universities should be brought up to their standards. Let us do that, rather than levelling Oxford and Cambridge.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall try to address my remarks to the subject of the debate, although the debate has ranged more widely. The House may have an opportunity to discuss admission policies on another occasion.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the funding of Oxbridge because, since the general election, the Government have unveiled policies that threaten the nature of grant-maintained schools, grammar schools and Church schools. Their policy towards Oxford and Cambridge represents yet another attack on centres of excellence.
The Government have been divided on this issue and the Prime Minister has intervened to ameliorate the more harmful aspects of the Department for Education and Employment's policy. The right hon. Gentleman has now been forced to slap down the Department's proposals for Oxbridge funding.
The Minister now has an opportunity to clarify the policy that has been batted across the net in the Chamber and by Government spokesmen outside this House, including Baroness Blackstone, the Minister with responsibility for higher education. We know that she is the driving force behind the destructive policy that we are discussing, which has created great uncertainty at Oxford and Cambridge.
The word "egalitarian" has been knocked about the Chamber a good deal today. That being so, I draw attention to an article in last night's edition of the Evening Standard by my former colleague George Walden. The headline reads:
Old egalitarians never die, they simply wreck our schools.
They are now out to wreck our excellent universities as well.
In the time that is available to me, I want to outline the background, which will explain why the matter before us is of such concern and why there is such uncertainty. The Dearing report suggested that the Government should reassess the payment of college fees at Oxford and Cambridge. Recommendation 74 said:
variations in the level of public funding for teaching
were legitimate only if
there is an approved difference in the provision
of teaching and
society, through the Secretary of State or his or her agent,
decides, after examination of the evidence
that in relation to other funding needs in higher education, it represents a good use of resources.
In August 1997, the Department wrote to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to examine the issue of funding at Oxford and Cambridge and especially the tutorial system. The Government especially asked the council to consider, when reaching its conclusions, the remarks made in the Dearing report and its new funding method for teaching, which is grounded on the principle of a set price for each of the four broad subject areas. Since then the HEFCE has been discussing the matter with Oxford and Cambridge and their colleges and we expect advice to come forward shortly.
The Government's initial position was, it appeared, to withdraw entirely the £35 million that supports the college-based tutorial system at Oxford and Cambridge.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Who said that?

Mrs. Browning: I am going through the chronology for the Minister. I hope that he will clarify the matter.
According to newspaper reports, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Minister, Baroness Blackstone and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were keen to redistribute the £35 million. It was clear from comments made by the Chancellor at the Labour party conference that he believed that Oxford and Cambridge received the money simply to pander to an elite. The indication given at the conference was that the money would be withdrawn.
A Minister was reported in the Financial Times on 23 October—perhaps it was the Under-Secretary; he might like to say whether it was—as saying:
with the entire sector facing a squeeze, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend a system which gives extra money to the rich.
That theme was taken up by Labour Members this morning. It is clear that a theme ran through the Government's initial response to the Dearing report—to remove the £35 million subsidy from Oxford and Cambridge. Since then, the Prime Minister has received representations from, among others, Lord Eatwell of


Queen's college, Cambridge, Baroness Perry, head of Cambridge's Lucy Cavendish college, Lord Plant, master of St. Catherine's college, Oxford, and Eric Anderson, former headmaster of Eton and now master of Lincoln college, Oxford. Mr. Anderson taught the Prime Minister at Fettes—the fee-paying school that is known as Scotland's Eton, for those interested in elitism.
It is important that the Minister clarifies the matter, because the Government's initial reaction is a compromise. The HEFCE is planning to make changes. It will be helpful if the Minister will guarantee that whatever compromise the Government come to following the Prime Minister's lobbying, representations made by the colleges will be taken into account.
I want to emphasise the value for money and the positive outcomes of the present arrangement. I hope that the compromise will take account of them. Oxford and Cambridge are world renowned centres of academic research, graduates coming out of them secure employment within six months and undergraduates have only a 2.6 per cent. fall-out rate compared with the national average of some 8 per cent. That excellence is a tribute to Oxford and Cambridge. Moreover, it costs half as much to educate a graduate at Oxford and Cambridge as it does at some of the ivy league universities in the United States, such as Stanford and Harvard. Oxford and Cambridge are good value for money.
The future of Oxford and Cambridge universities hangs in the balance. I hope that the Minister will reassure them and us that centres of excellence, not just in this country but worldwide, such as at Oxford and Cambridge will be retained and that no dogma or elitism will see their stature diminished, as the Government have sought to do in other areas of education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for raising this issue at a time when there is great interest in it.
I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) refer to an article, which appeared last night, written by a former hon. Member—George Walden. It was possibly the most spiteful, personal attack on my noble Friend the Minister of State that I have ever read. I know that, as she comes from an education background, the hon. Lady is aware, as we all are, of the need to review every part of education funding. No part of the review should be sacrosanct. We should be able to review the funding that goes to every university. I shall try to set out just how we intend to do it.
I am intrigued to hear that we have already decided that we are to manipulate the HEFCE's review, because I have not seen that report. It has not yet arrived on our desks. We asked for the report precisely because we wanted a good, objective assessment of the situation at the moment.
Many other people would like to review the situation as well. One thinks, for example, of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I wonder how the Oxford colleges would feel if they had him breathing down their necks wanting to find out just how each pound is spent. Many agencies that are hard pressed

for money are examined under that microscope. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that there are no rules of engagement. The colleges would have a very tough time justifying how the money is spent.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Howells: No. The hon. Gentleman—much as I appreciate his contributions—has spoken enough.
We asked for help from the HEFCE because we believe that it is vital that we get expert help and that we try to understand how Oxford and Cambridge relate to every other university and higher education institution in the country. We are aware of the standard of excellence that comes out of Oxford and Cambridge. I would be the last person in the world to be any part of a new regime or system that threatened or reduced standards of excellence. If somebody were to ask, "What about the 69 Nobel prizes?" I would say, yes, it would be very hard to reinvent the system that has won this country 69 Nobel prizes, but I would like a lot more Nobel prizes to be won by other universities as well.
Nobody should go away from the Chamber thinking that Oxford and Cambridge are the only centres of excellence. There are very many others and there are universities that are improving at a tremendous rate.

Mr. Robathan: We want to lift them all up.

Dr. Howells: Exactly.
We are talking to Oxford and Cambridge. I met the vice-chancellors last week. We are talking to everybody involved. I am fully aware of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). They must be made aware that, although we cannot influence any university's policy on student admissions, we are watching very carefully to ensure that the static intake of the past 30 years starts to improve. I do not believe that children who are at state schools are intrinsically any less intelligent than children who are at independent schools. On the contrary, all children have enormous potential and we need to do a great deal to start tapping it. I welcome any debate on the review for Oxford and Cambridge. That is why I am so grateful that we are having this debate.
Today, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we are looking specifically at one issue—college fees. I assure the House that we will consider the matter objectively. We will do nothing to endanger the standards of excellence at Oxford or Cambridge.

Mr. Jackson: Will the Minister give me an undertaking that he will write to me setting out the legal basis of the threats to legislate against the charging of private fees by private institutions? In particular will he take into account European law and the relevant European convention?

Dr. Howells: When I understand the significance of that question, I shall certainly consider whether to respond. If it is academic-speak for whether we are in favour of top-up fees, let me tell the hon. Gentleman right now that we are not. If there are problems with a percentage of bright young people going from state


schools to Oxford and Cambridge when top-up fees are introduced, it will be a long time before the Government allow that to happen.

Mr. Jackson: rose—

Dr. Howells: No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has intervened many times. I shall look carefully at the legal basis and try to reassure him, if that is possible.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton challenged the Government on the basis of press reports. I hope that she will acknowledge that that is not the best source of information and accept my undertaking here and now that we are not in the business of dumbing down or egalitarian dogma. It is a long time since I have been accused of dogma—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Nineteen sixty-eight.

Dr. Howells: Since 1968, probably.
We have no intention of indulging in dogma. Suggesting that we do is a cheap crack. The Government realise that the country's future lies in our having the best educated, best trained work force in the world. If we do not have it, we will not be able to compete in an increasingly global economy. We are determined to ensure that we have such a work force, and Oxford and Cambridge will play their part in that, as will all the other universities and an area of education about which there is often a deafening silence in this place, especially from Conservative Members—further education.
We will ensure that we see the role of Oxford and Cambridge within that wider context. If we manage to do that, we will go some way towards turning the rhetoric in which so many of us believe-lifelong learning, creating a learning society—into a reality.
We will take note of what has been said today. This has been a very useful debate. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. We have all benefited from it.

European Regional Aid

Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about a matter that is of paramount concern not only to my constituency in South Yorkshire, but to every other area in the United Kingdom that has suffered job losses as a result of the demise of our traditional industries—industries such as coal mining, as in Barnsley's case, and steel, textiles and heavy engineering. All those industries are trying desperately to get back on their feet and reaching for new economic directions. Without new industry and new jobs they will inevitably continue on a downward spiral.
I am happy to say, however, that huge strides are being made. In Barnsley and Doncaster, a brighter future is beginning to emerge: although there is still a long way to go, a solid foundation has been laid for future growth. I would like to say that that foundation stemmed from the interest and help of the last Government over the past decade or so but, sadly, assistance from that quarter has been derisory, so I cannot say it. No Conservative Members are present to answer that point.
What I can and must say is that, without doubt, the impetus for the first steps in Barnsley's recovery has come primarily from the European Union. Given my position as a Barnsley Member, it is difficult for me to criticise Brussels. When we lost 14 pits and 20,000 mining jobs almost at a stroke, Barnsley lost its livelihood and came close to economic death. Over recent years, European help—not the last Government's help—has sustained us and put Barnsley back on the road to recovery. Barnsley is not atypical: I know for a fact that the same can be said for all coalfield areas and I suspect that the story will be similar in the many other areas that have suffered from the structural decline of their basic industries.
The figures speak for themselves. The current EU regional aid programme runs from 1994 to 1999; in that period, the United Kingdom will have received some £4.7 billion in assistance—nearly £1 billion for each and every year. We are talking big money. Over the years, the EU has been used to nurture new enterprises, to provide new industrial infrastructure, to fund training and to develop community projects.
That brings me to the crux of my reason for requesting the debate. There is a real crisis on the horizon: there is a real danger that our principal lifeline could soon disappear. The current spending round for EU aid ends in 1999. Discussions on the framework of the next round, which will run from 2000 to 2006, are already well advanced. The European Commission has already revealed its proposals in a consultation document that was published in July. Fortunately, those proposals have yet to be agreed by member Governments.
I say that with relief because it is no exaggeration to state that, if allowed to proceed, the proposals will deal a body blow to our hopes of recovery. Let me spell it out loud and clear. If the Commission is allowed to do as it intends, there is a real possibility that not one part of the United Kingdom will qualify for continuing regional aid. It is that bad—that serious. I shall explain why.
First, the Commission is determined to reduce the geographical coverage of the regional funds from about 50 per cent. of the EU population to between 35 and


40 per cent. Secondly, it is proposed that there should be no change in the key eligibility criteria—gross domestic product, industrial job losses and unemployment—that are used to decide the distribution of aid. Those two factors—greater concentration of funds and unchanged eligibility criteria—are extremely bad news for Britain.
The GDP indicator for eligibility is used to decide the top tier of aid, which is known as objective 1. If an area is to qualify, its GDP must be less than 75 per cent. of the Community average. In Britain's industrial areas, although GDP is falling in relation to that of the rest of Europe, most rates are between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the Community average and none are lower than 75 per cent.
In other words, those areas are in a poor state of health but are not quite badly off enough to qualify for the top tier of aid. Ironically, despite their lower GDP, they may well fail to qualify for the second tier of aid as well—objective 2 aid. The eligibility criteria are industrial job losses and unemployment. We can no longer demonstrate substantial recent job losses, most jobs having been shed in the 1980s; and our official unemployment rates are falsely low and, for the most part, will not meet the EU criteria.
On paper—this is the information that European Commission officials will use—Britain's older industrial areas seem to be in fine fettle, with few job losses and falling unemployment, but anyone who is familiar with the situation in, for example, the north-east, south Wales, Merseyside and my patch—South Yorkshire—will know that that is simply not the case. Despite progress, the problems of those areas remain numerous and acute.

Mr. David Watts: Such concerns are heightened in areas such as Merseyside, which have been experiencing the worst of the recession over the past few years. Among other things, we would like a commitment from the Government to fight for every area that currently enjoys objective 1 and objective 2 status. That is very important to us. We would also like the labour survey figures, rather than the unemployment figures, to be used; and we would like the Government to fight for a flexible approach to GDP. If my hon. Friend the Minister will give me an assurance to that effect today, much of the concern that has been expressed to me—which I know is felt throughout the country—will be alleviated.

Mr. Ennis: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply specifically to his points.
The fact that only a few of the hundreds and thousands of jobs that were lost in the 1970s and 1980s have been replaced is hidden by the distortion of the unemployment statistics. I shall give three brief examples from my area. First, 24.4 per cent. —nearly one in four—of school children in Barnsley come from households with no experience of work Secondly, the average income in Barnsley is 55 per cent. of the national average. Thirdly, 19,000 new jobs will be needed to return employment in Barnsley to the national average. I defy anyone, here or in Brussels, to say that those figures illustrate the existence of a vibrant and healthy economy.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, which can be

equally well illustrated by the situation in south Wales. Economic inactivity rates—which reflect hidden mass unemployment—are also extremely important, and male economic inactivity rates in my area are of grave concern to us. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press that point hard in negotiations about the criteria.

Mr. Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
I would like to say that Barnsley is unique. It would certainly be in the town's interest for me to do so, thereby indulging in a spot of special pleading. I cannot say that, however. It must be said that Barnsley's circumstances are replicated, to a greater or lesser extent, in other traditional industrial areas throughout the nation. In making our case to Brussels for continuing aid after 1999, we could all be scuppered on the same misleading grounds, unable to demonstrate the existence of large-scale job losses in recent years and unable to show the true level of joblessness. I am enraged by the position and—as has been demonstrated by the interventions that we have heard—others share my sentiments. Brussels must not be allowed to walk away from a job that in our areas is only half done.
What should we do? I am closely associated with the alliance for regional aid, which was set up specifically in response to fears about European regional aid. The alliance represents virtually every local authority in the older industrial areas of the United Kingdom that currently qualify for objective 1 and objective 2 regional aid. In total, 130 local authorities make up that alliance, so it has a powerful voice. It has been working on this issue for some months and has come up with proposals that I and many other hon. Members fully endorse.
It is essential for the Commission to adopt eligibility criteria that reflect the true situation in Britain's industrial areas. The true picture is not shown by information on recent job losses and official unemployment figures. The thrust of the Government's negotiations must be to modify those criteria.
I urge Ministers seriously to consider three proposals. First, the Commission currently uses the International Labour Organisation's measure of unemployment, which profoundly disadvantages the United Kingdom by excluding people who have given up looking for work and those who are supported by benefits, such as incapacity benefit and income support, that do not require them actively to seek jobs. A broader definition of unemployment that embraces all those out of work who want a job would be a truer reflection of joblessness. Those figures are available Europewide, so such a definition could be adopted.
Secondly, GDP figures are used as objective 1 criteria. Their adoption as objective 2 criteria would assist the United Kingdom's case enormously. Most UK industrial areas have a lower GDP than similar areas in France and Germany, so such a step would benefit us greatly.
Thirdly, the Commission must be persuaded to take a long view, possibly as far back as 1980 when the United Kingdom's industrial restructuring began. If it adopts a base date in the 1990s, most UK industrial areas will not qualify. It is of paramount importance that the Government urgently and successfully negotiate adjustments to the criteria in those three critical areas.
Furthermore, informed, reliable guidance shows that the Commission is minded to designate up to 50 per cent. of objective 2 areas across the European Union on the basis of proposals from member state Governments using national data. That would greatly assist our case. The Government must grasp this opportunity, because it would open the door for objective 2 aid to be directed at areas where it is needed by allowing European Union-wide criteria to be supported by criteria set at national level and based on national data.
Indicators that measure social exclusion and competitiveness could be brought into play. That would substantially strengthen the United Kingdom's bid for continued funding. I ask the Government to consider including in the calculations three measures of social exclusion: income support, incapacity benefit and level of earnings. I am confident that close examination of those three indicators would reveal those areas of the United Kingdom that most urgently need help, and that should be recommended to the Commission for objective 2 assistance.
I remind Ministers that time is running out. The Commission will publish firm proposals on the future of regional aid next spring and it will then be difficult to bring about a change of course. There is no doubt that European regional aid has provided a lifeline to former traditional industrial areas such as Barnsley and Doncaster. The new Labour Government must maintain that lifeline.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) on securing the debate. As a former leader of Barnsley metropolitan borough council and as founder and chair of the Barnsley economic regeneration forum, which is a private-public partnership, he brings great local and national experience to our discussions. He has shown his expertise by setting out the case not just for the Barnsley area, but for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I am glad to see a good attendance by Labour Members at this first economic debate on regional aid—in contrast to the vacant Conservative Benches. Not one Conservative Member is present and there is no Conservative spokesman. Where is the shadow President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), or any of his deputies? No wonder they were recently described by a Conservative supporter as nonentities. They are not present because they do not know about the problems and do not care.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, European structural funds make an important contribution to economic development in many regions of the United Kingdom. On 16 July, the European Commission published its suggestions for the reform of the funds in its communication "Agenda 2000". We expect detailed legislative proposals in the spring of next year, so this short debate is topical.
Current structural fund programmes run until the end of 1999: 30 programmes operate across the United

Kingdom. My hon. Friend's constituency is covered by the Yorkshire and Humberside objective 2 programme. Our short-term aim is to maximise the effectiveness of those programmes. So far this year, elected members from local authorities have played a strong role in programme monitoring, new financial systems have been introduced in England to accelerate payments, and we have brought social partners, such as representatives from employers' and employees' organisations, into local partnerships to support those programmes.
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have also nominated to the Commission 10 UK pilot projects for territorial employment pacts, including one in Barnsley. In England, we have put new arrangements in place for administering structural funds. We want to give local partnerships more responsibility through an action plan approach. Action plans will provide a real opportunity to improve the administration of structural funds. They will allow partnerships to bring together individual projects so as to reflect regional priorities, to tackle issues in a co-ordinated way and to streamline bureaucracy.
Circumstances vary across the country and between regions, so we are not seeking to impose a uniform system. It will be for each programme monitoring committee to decide to what extent it wishes to adopt the new action plan approach. We will aim to do more in the next two years to improve effectiveness further.
I realise that the interests of all my hon. Friends go beyond 1999. The European Union will face significant changes over the next decade, particularly if it is to be enlarged to include new member states from central and eastern Europe. The common agricultural policy should be reformed and its structural policies should be adapted to the changed circumstances.
On the key question of reform of the structural and cohesion funds, the Government believe that the new arrangements should be fair to all member states, especially to the United Kingdom and its regions, and should be affordable, durable, simpler and more efficient.
The United Kingdom is the second largest net contributor to the European Union's finances. We are net contributors to the cost of these development funds. That is why we are paying close attention to the total cost of the funds and to our receipts.
The accession of poorer countries will have significant implications for EU finances. As the overall EU budget must be contained within its current share of GDP, enlargement will mean that the structural funds will have to stretch further. All existing member states will have to accept significantly lower receipts in the next century. The United Kingdom's net contribution, like those of many other countries, will rise on enlargement. We accept this as the necessary price for bringing these countries into the EU, but we cannot accept that the UK's net contribution should move even further out of line.
The fundamentals of reform for the structural and cohesion funds should be as follows. First, the overall cost of the structural and cohesion funds should be contained below 0.46 per cent. of European Union GDP both before and after enlargement. Secondly, existing member states should expect cuts in their receipts if costs are to be contained. Thirdly, while we recognise that there will


be a drop in receipts, the new regime should and must be fair to the UK in comparison with other member states. Fourthly, the reform of the funds should be durable and fair to acceding member states. Fifthly, the effectiveness of the funds should be improved, and substantial administrative simplification is needed.
Fairness was at the heart of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, so I will go into some detail about what we understand by fairness. According to data held by the Commission, the United Kingdom is the fourth or fifth poorest state in the European Union; the Commission's proposals will not make us the fourth or fifth largest per capita recipient. Therefore, we are not convinced that the Commission's ideas for distributing the funds are fair. I am pleased to tell the House that we are actively pursuing with the Commission and with other member states the issue of how a fairer system can be established.
I feel passionately about the key issue of unemployment. The Commission intends to use Eurostat figures as part of determining allocations and eligibility based on unemployment. Those statistics are based on the International Labour Organisation definition and are collected in the labour force survey. People are asked whether they are working or looking for work and whether they are available for work. Even on this internationally harmonised basis it is not clear whether the statistics provide a useful measure of need between countries. On that basis, UK unemployment is still three or four percentage points below the European average.
Portugal's unemployment rate is a third that of Spain despite being the poorer country. Comparisons between different countries and unemployment statistics may say more about business cycles and national labour markets than about regional need.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Would it help if our unemployment statistics had not been produced by the fiddled method that the previous Government introduced? They altered the collection of unemployment figures 30 times. Presumably it would be helpful to have the correct figures. The Government have a problem because, if they correct the figures in one fell swoop, it will look as if we have massively increased unemployment. At least for a period, two sets of figures could be produced, one under the current method and the other under the method that should be used with the corrected figures that we think should be taken into account.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is not about figures: it is about millions of unemployed people. We need Europewide figures that will accurately reflect that. We agree that the present figures do not accurately reflect the criteria that are needed to assess regional aid and regional aid policy. We are considering other possibilities that more accurately reflect the realities of unemployment. I assure my hon. Friends that we are discussing those with the Commission and with other member states. One suggestion is that receipts and eligibility should be related to national GDP,

with each member state or region deciding which sub-regional areas would be eligible within a centrally determined total.

Mr. Watts: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to meet an alliance delegation which might be able to help him come up with a better formula than the one that is currently used?

Mr. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend knows, I do not have direct responsibility for this matter, but I shall certainly communicate his request to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, if only to prove that although the Conservative Benches are empty there are at least some opposition Members in the House. Will he assure the House that he will argue for fairness in a European context and in the national context so that all regions have an equal ability to access funds? In previous years, the DTI has been a barrier rather than a help to some regions' attempts to access funds. There should be subsidiarity in this matter as in others.

Mr. Griffiths: That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. The Conservative Benches are still empty, as they have been throughout the debate.
The Commission has proposed reducing the number of objectives from seven to three so that each area of the European Union is covered by one of them. In terms of eligibility for the three objectives, the Commission has proposed that objective 1—the most generous—should be based on regional per capita GDP.
For the new objective 2, the Commission is slightly less clear about eligibility criteria. That objective will cover industrial, urban, rural and fishing areas, and it is a matter of deciding which areas would benefit most from such support. Relatively few local area statistics are available at the European level; many more are available nationally. In our informal discussions with the Commission, we are suggesting that determining eligibility at national or regional level would improve the effective targeting of the funds.
The Commission also proposes that the population coverage of the two geographically targeted objectives should represent only 35 to 40 per cent. of the EU population. This compares with 51 per cent. currently covered by geographical targeting. The consequence will be that many European areas currently benefiting from objective 2 or objective 5b will lose such eligibility. Some of them will be in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has spoken many times about informal discussions. Do the Government intend to table a proper paper on these issues? If they do, will he make it available to the House?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that I have referred only once to informal discussions. There have been other discussions. My hon. Friend has fought tirelessly to bring employment to his constituency and to south Wales. I know that he will support our aim of ensuring that the UK as a whole is treated fairly.
We hope to obtain a reasonable transition period for areas that eventually lose eligibility. In negotiations on the future of the funds, the Government aim to protect everybody in the United Kingdom and will seek to ensure that the needs of individual regions are taken into account.
For the first six months of next year, the UK will hold the presidency of the European Union Council of Ministers. We expect the Commission to present detailed legislative proposals on the funds during the spring. We will then push forward the detailed negotiations, although we would expect them not to be completed until the Austrian presidency. They will also need to be approved by the European Parliament. At some stage, possibly in early 1999, we will know how eligibility under the three objectives will be determined and individual areas' eligibility can be confirmed and financial allocations made. After that, regional plans can be drawn up, negotiated and adopted. The European Commission must aim to complete that in time for the new programmes to start in the year 2000 and the funds must be able to continue their work. However, that is a matter for negotiation.
I repeat: we will seek to ensure that the needs of individual regions are taken into account. We have already started lobbying. We need the UK to speak with one voice, whether it is the national Government, local authorities or campaigning groups of the type that have been mentioned. We need to draw on one another's knowledge, skills and argument.
The House has listened to the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough with interest. I am sorry that no Conservative Member has listened. It would help us to argue our case in Europe for each UK region if we spoke as a whole House and if Conservative Members took an interest in the matter. I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend has given us to consider some of the crucial economic issues involved.

Storage Tanks (Petrol Leakage)

1 pm

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to have secured time for this important matter. Although it might at first appear to be a typical Back-Bench debate, dealing with a specified area and of limited interest outside that area, it has universal application.
Within the past 12 months, my constituency has witnessed two serious pollution incidents as a result of petrol tank leakage. One incident occurred at Bontddu near Dolgellau, the other at Llanrwst. Broadly speaking, there are some stark lessons to be learned and conclusions to be drawn.
The person on the street might be forgiven for believing that the sale of petroleum is highly regulated. A considerable body of law applies to the sector. We have, for example, the Petroleum Spirit (Motor Vehicles etc.) Regulations 1929, the Petroleum (Mixtures) Order 1929, the Petroleum (Compressed Gases) Order 1930, the Petroleum (Liquid Methane) Order 1957, the Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquified Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972, the Petroleum (Regulation) Acts 1928, the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, the Petroleum Spirit (Plastic Containers) Regulations 1982 and many others. Despite that, after 13 months, the incident at Bontddu is still unresolved.
Details of a pollution incident were received by the Environment Agency locally on 19 September 1996. Some of the villagers at Bontddu had complained of petroleum odours to Gwynedd council's trading standards officers in the previous week. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that both are linked and that the discharge had begun several days before 19 September.
It was found that there had been leakage from underground tanks at Bontddu service station into a stream that flows into the Mawddach river, one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the whole of Wales. The quality of the stream was severely impaired, and there were high fish mortalities. Some estuary invertebrates were also affected.
During the initial investigation, the Environment Agency ascertained that a volume in excess of 30,000 litres of petrol had leaked from the underground tanks and drained from the immediate vicinity of the site. A meeting was convened on 27 September 1996 between Environment Agency staff, the garage proprietor, Liquid Cargo Management—an oil recovery specialist—and officers of Gwynedd trading standards and environmental health departments. Certain remedial works were agreed—for example, booming off the river, excavation of the tank in question and flushing the contamination from the ground. By now, the leaked volume was estimated to be in excess of 60,000 litres—twice the original estimate.
Families were meantime evacuated because the concentrated petroleum smell was at times almost unbearable and routinely gave villagers severe headaches. There was also the obvious possibility of an explosive mixture being created at some point.
Things appeared to be proceeding slowly. The county council and the Environment Agency were involved, but there was no official involvement by the Health and


Safety Executive. A public meeting that I chaired was arranged in November, calling together representatives of all agencies and the specialist firm that had been retained to rectify the pollution. At that meeting, an HSE representative said that that body would not become involved unless there was a risk to public safety.
With a spillage of 60,000 litres—13,000 gallons—of the most flammable products known to man, one would conclude that a danger would at some point arise. Not so, the experts told us—despite the pollution and the obvious health problems being caused, including headaches and worse. The public were safe, they said. Those who attended the public meeting were incredulous, but the experts said that there was no danger. Our arguments did not change their minds. The HSE said that it was perfectly okay and that there were no problems.
A few weeks later, not surprisingly, there was an explosion in one of the houses near the polluted site—a build-up of gases, and bang. It was safe to assume now that there was a danger to the public. Even the HSE took that view at that late stage.
The village school was evacuated. The children were bussed each day to Dolgellau to receive their education in a sports and leisure complex. That unhappy situation lasted until September. Homes continue to be evacuated. Several families have been moved from one address to another, in some cases from mobile home to mobile home. One family even camped out for a while. Incredibly, the remedial work has not been completed.
The explosion occurred in the early part of this year. Naturally, the villagers became increasingly concerned at the lack of progress and were alarmed at the fact that, despite asking several months previously for air and monitoring systems, these were not installed in the affected areas until spring 1997. Similarly, monitoring equipment was promised for the school building, so that an informed judgment could be made as to when it would be safe for pupils to return to it. That was supplied late as well.
To bring some pressure to bear, a further public meeting, which I chaired, took place in April. By now, it was a question of trying to ascertain who was responsible for clearing up the pollution and bringing Bontddu back to normality. Incidentally, the village has many times won the title of the prettiest village in Meirionnydd. That is some honour when one looks at the constituency that I am privileged to represent.
It was hoped that this would not become a buck-passing exercise. In the event, assurances were given at the meeting about monitoring equipment and so on. One of the villagers' greatest concerns was the closure of the village school. Naturally, as parents, they wanted the school to thrive and to continue providing first-class education. Their fear was that children might be placed in other schools and their previous one closed permanently. In the event, I am pleased to say that the children returned to school in September.
Somewhat incredibly, the pollution incident has yet to be dealt with. Homes remain evacuated. Naturally, there is considerable anger and resentment about the way in which this intolerable situation has been allowed to drift on and on, almost aimlessly.
Let us consider the main players. We have the loss adjusters, who act for the garage proprietor. They engaged two specialist clearing-up firms, one of which caused an explosion, although the other fortunately did not. The Environment Agency, which was in at the beginning, has done nothing about the fish kill. The HSE, in its infinite wisdom, declined to act because there was no perceived risk to public safety. Needless to say, the explosion changed that. Those incidents should be the subject of a full public inquiry. I am adamant that lessons can be learned from our experiences.
Many serious questions need to be answered. Why was it that the spillage was assessed at 30,000 litres for some time, but then that assessment was varied to 60,000 litres? How long will it take to clear the petrol from the ground and the atmosphere? Why were read-out machines placed so far away as to be of no evidential use? Why was the school closed but the garage allowed to continue trading? Why did it take so long to install benzene tubes in the houses most affected? What about the dozens of other houses in the area that were not supplied with them?
Why, when it was patently obvious that there was a safety risk, did the HSE, although knowing all the facts in October 1996, decline to become involved until March 1997, after the explosion—some might say, the expected explosion. Why are four families still evacuated from their homes almost 14 months after the incident? Why did it take six months to issue an improvement notice on the garage proprietor? Who is in overall charge of the operation, and therefore, who should be charged with answering those important questions and more?
This morning, I spoke to a responsible officer of Conwy borough council, who took charge of another incident at Llanrwst. He was this morning taking part in a debriefing exercise with representatives of all north Wales unitary authorities to compare the Bontddu incident with the one at Llanrwst and to see what lessons might be learnt. I welcome that. Unfortunately, I believe that such incidents will occur with increasing frequency over the next months and years.
In Bontddu, the situation was muddled when one authority passed the ball to another and no one wished to run with the ball or to accept ultimate responsibility. It is an absolute and unmitigated nightmare for many of my constituents. Surely a public inquiry is necessary. We cannot allow matters to be left without proper expert examination and analysis.
I have asked 10 basic questions which remain unanswered. I am sure that there are another 10 or 20 that should be asked. A public inquiry is the only vehicle for doing that. It is the only way that we can ensure that such incidents do not happen again.
In a written answer that I received yesterday from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, I was told:
In the period since January 1995 the Environment Agency recorded 55 incidents of water pollution from underground petrol storage at filling stations in England and six such incidents in Wales." — [Official Report, 18 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 125.]
By contrast, in a recent article in The Guardian, the London Fire Brigade said that it registers 70 to 80 seepages a year. Three years ago, Shell UK suggested that up to one third of all underground tanks—as many as 10,000—may be faulty. Perhaps we are seeing the tip of a very nasty iceberg.
There are 900 service stations in Wales, about half of which are independently operated. I do not want to place additional burdens on retailers because we have already lost dozens of them over the years. Rural areas, such as the area in which I live, depend on them, so it is not a part of my brief to place financial commitments on retailers. However, an answer must somehow be found. Compulsory insurance for retailers is probably the most obvious and will have to come in.
I am aware of the new draft regulations that have been formulated by the HSE, but I do not think that they will greatly assist matters. They will codify the myriad pieces of legislation—a move that I welcome. They will place on local authorities virtually all the responsibility for licensing—as is the case now—but also risk assessment and enforcement. That is fine if local authorities are given the resources to train staff and to obtain expensive equipment. They need those resources if they are effectively to undertake risk assessments. If they do not get them, the regulations will contain only empty words. They will do nothing to address the problem.
I urge the Minister to undertake a Welsh Office inquiry into the prevalence of older tanks, which we are virtually waiting to see burst. Secondly, will he ensure that there is a full public inquiry into the continuing nightmare at Bontddu near Dolgellau? Thirdly, will he ensure that there is effective co-ordination between the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the public protection units of unitary authorities? Fourthly, I urge upon him the need for the automatic adoption by the HSE of a lead role in dealing with those crises.
I hope that the Minister will respond in detail to my points. My constituents at Bontddu and Llanwrst—but especially those at Bontddu, who remain homeless—deserve nothing less.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for bringing this important issue of public safety before the House. I sympathise with the plight of his constituents, who have had to cope with the disruption and anxiety caused by the events at Bontddu during the past year.
In the time available, I shall try to deal with the areas of concern identified by the hon. Gentleman. If I do not deal with all of them, I will be happy to meet him and to correspond with him on the subject—although I am sure that he will understand that a number of the issues are outside my Department's direct responsibility.
There are about 15,000 retail petrol stations in Great Britain. In general, their safety record is very good. Every day, millions of people visit petrol stations to refuel their vehicles, usually in complete safety. We all tend to take that convenience for granted. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, petrol is a potentially dangerous material, so it is essential that all the necessary safety controls are put in place and properly maintained.
Fortunately, injuries to members of the public following the leakage of petrol from underground tanks and pipes is rare. Nevertheless, although the recent series of incidents in Wales has resulted in only one slight injury, that is still one too many.
The hon. Gentleman has reminded us of the history of the Bontddu incident. In September last year, it was discovered that a substantial quantity of petrol had leaked

into the ground and into a nearby river from an underground storage tank. Various agencies have been involved in the response to that. Following an explosion last April, a number of homes were evacuated, as was the school—although, thankfully, the school has since reopened. From last November, the Health and Safety Executive has assisted the local authority in investigating the incident.
I am aware that the local HSE office at Wrexham has recently written to the hon. Gentleman informing him of the continuing progress of the clean-up operation. I am pleased to be able to report that a clean-up plan has been prepared by the contractors. The HSE received a copy on 12 November and has now commented on it. I expect that the contractors will start work shortly, in close consultation with local residents.

Mr. Llwyd: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that 12 months is a long time in which to prepare a clean-up plan? It is a fact that the HSE did not officially become involved until March of this year, after the explosion.

Mr. Griffiths: It is unfortunate that the matter has taken a year to come to a conclusion. Perhaps that is a lesson that we need to learn from the way that the incident has been handled. We may need to reflect on whether the HSE should become involved at an earlier stage in such incidents. We need to look at those matters.
Gwynedd county council has issued formal cautions for breaches of the petroleum licence, and other aspects of the case may result in legal proceedings. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about the length of time that the incident has been allowed to continue, especially because of the impact on the local community. In recent months, there have been several similar incidents in Wales, and that highlights the importance of the issue raised today by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are approaching a transition in safety law for petrol stations. Current legislation dates back to 1928 and requires anyone storing petrol to hold a licence from the local petrol licensing authority. In Wales, the authority was either the trading standards or the environmental health department of the local authority. The authority uses licence conditions to achieve the safety measures that it feels are necessary at particular sites. Local authority inspectors are able to visit sites to ensure that the licensee is complying with the licence conditions. They have the power also to take enforcement action when non-compliance is discovered.
The Government accept that current legislation is not completely satisfactory—which may be a bit of an understatement. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has certainly briefly highlighted the complexity of current legislation. As licensing authorities have a free hand in determining which conditions should apply, there are variations in controls imposed by authorities for similar petrol stations across Wales, Scotland and England. Those and other points emerged in the Health and Safety Commission's "Review of Regulation" report. As he will be aware, the commission advised the Government on safety matters and the need for changes to safety legislation.
In 1996, the Health and Safety Commission asked the Health and Safety Executive to develop modern legislation that addressed today's safety concerns at petrol stations. On 1 September 1997, the commission published a consultative document on its proposals. The closing date for comments is 1 December 1997.
The commission's principal considerations are to ensure that there is confidence that the law will apply equally to all petrol stations across the land, that the law reflects risks from petrol—especially leaks from sites—and that enforcers have effective and flexible enforcement tools when those are necessary.
I shall explain the key proposals affecting petrol storage. For the first time, the local enforcement authority's consent would be needed before the building or major alteration of a petrol situation could begin. A site developer would have to provide technical information, including details of proposed underground tanks and pipework. Consent would be based upon risk assessment of the site, which would have to take particular account of risks to the public who live in the vicinity. If the local enforcing authority is not satisfied on safety grounds, it will be able to require changes to the plans.
A new duty will be placed on site operators to ensure that petrol is stored safely. Such a duty is of particular relevance to the incident that occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, because it will require that a system is in place to detect rapidly leaks from underground tanks and pipes. There will be a requirement also to ensure that equipment is maintained in a safe condition. Those requirements will apply not only to new sites but to all sites. There will be a requirement also to make safe tanks and pipes that are no longer used. The Government plan to lay the new regulations—supported by new guidance—before the House towards the middle of 1998.
The Government realise the environmental damage caused by petrol leakage from underground tanks and are working on tackling the problem. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said so forcefully in his speech, water pollution is the main environmental threat posed by such leaks. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environment Agency is responsible for protecting controlled waters—which include inland, coastal and ground waters. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions told the hon. Gentleman yesterday, in response to his parliamentary question, in the past two years, the Environment Agency recorded six water pollution incidents in Wales from underground storage tanks.
I should stress that, under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is a criminal offence to cause the pollution of controlled waters, whether the pollution is caused deliberately or accidentally. The Environment Agency has

made it clear that, when serious pollution is caused and the agency has adequate evidence to support a case, it will prosecute polluters.
The Government intend to strengthen further powers available to the agency. We plan soon, for example, to bring into force provisions under the 1991 Act enabling the agency to require anti-pollution works to be done. The powers should allow the agency to be more proactive in preventing water pollution from petrol filling stations.
It is vital that all Government agencies involved with petrol should work together effectively. I know that the Government and our relevant agencies—such as the Health and Safety Agency and the Environment Agency—are already considering the necessary arrangements.
As I said, the Government's plans to strengthen petrol safety controls and environmental protection are already well advanced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—or the hon. Gentleman, as he is not quite yet an hon. Friend in the technical, House sense; outside the House, of course he is a friend—will be reassured by that.

Mr. Llwyd: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I know that it will be difficult for him to say anything today about my call for a public inquiry, but will he consider that request further? I am not trying to put him on the spot, and I realise that he cannot comment on it today. Nevertheless, now that he has heard more about the incident—I also propose to write further to him on it—will he please keep the possibility open?

Mr. Griffiths: I had planned to deal with that point, although I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman should be concerned about it, as we have reached the end of the debate and it has not yet been mentioned. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—to whom the Health and Safety Commission is responsible—the concerns expressed today by him, especially his wish that lessons should be learned from the recent events and that new controls should be introduced as speedily as possible.
I have asked that a full report be prepared of the way in which the incident has been handled, and I will arrange for it to be placed in the Library. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is a very serious matter and—based on the evidence provided and the story recounted by him—I am not in a position to decide whether there should be a public inquiry. I hope that my assurance that a full history of the incident will be put on paper and placed in the Library is adequate. I will ensure also that he personally receives a copy of the report.
If the hon. Gentleman feels that the report does not cover everything, we shall look again at anything that may concern him. Once again I thank him for introducing a debate on a very important issue. It has given the Government the opportunity to put clearly in the public domain our concern and the measures that we intend to take to ensure that such incidents do not recur.

Kenya (Human Rights)

Mr. John McDonnell: I am extremely heartened by the acceptance of the subject of human rights abuses in Kenya for today's debate. It is a reflection of the warmth and affection that many right hon. and hon. Members feel for Kenya and its people.
No one who has visited Kenya and met its people can fail to be entranced by a country so beautiful and so abundant in natural resources. From the fertile shores of Lake Naivasha to the game-filled plains of the Masai Mara, across the green foothills of Mount Kenya to the beaches of Mombasa, Kenya is a stunning garden of Eden.
No one can fail to be impressed by the fortitude, vigour and enterprise of the Kenyan people. Kenya is a vibrant melee of Africans, Asians and Mzungus—the settlers who stayed on after decolonialisation—most of whom share a common bond of loyalty and commitment to their country—a commitment bred from a courageous struggle to free themselves from colonial oppression and establish a modern nation.
I introduce the debate with considerable humility. I do not wish to be depicted as some interfering neo-colonialist lecturing an ex-colony on how to manage its affairs. Nor do I want to be portrayed as some ex-pat arrogantly expostulating over a tusker beer on the verandah of the Norfolk hotel in Nairobi.
Instead, I speak firstly as a friend to friends—a friend of the Kenyan people to the Kenyan people. I speak as someone who represents many constituents who originate from Kenya and who share my love of that country. Above all, I speak as a socialist, and thus someone who believes that international solidarity places a duty on us all to associate ourselves with and support all those whose human rights are being abused and who struggle against oppression.
The Government, with wide acclaim and my total support, have placed human rights at the centre of their international relations policy. The recent White Paper on international development defined the human rights that have been recognised by the global community and protected by international legal instruments.
We said that human rights include all those rights essential for human survival, physical security, liberty, and development in dignity of the human being. They include the right to life and liberty; the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including food, water and housing; the right to social protection in times of need; the right to education; freedoms of religion, opinion, speech and expression; freedom of association; the right to participate in the political process; the right to be free from arbitrary arrest or imprisonment and to a fair trial; and, above all, freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It is with immense sadness that I report that, on virtually every count, the present Kenyan Government stand accused. On those basic physical freedoms—freedom from torture, imprisonment and loss of life—the most recent Amnesty International report published two months ago indicts the Kenyan regime.
Physical force has increasingly become a basic ingredient of Kenyan life. In its recent investigations in Kenya, Amnesty International identified numerous reports

of human rights defenders being threatened, harassed, beaten or arbitrarily arrested. Their meetings have been disrupted, and their premises raided. Journalists trying to report on events have been assaulted by the police and by members of the ruling party's youth wing.
The Kenyan police have used their wide-ranging powers of arrest without warrant extensively in round-ups of the poor, the street children and those suspected of sedition. There are continued reports of ill-treatment, torture and deaths in custody as a result of torture.
Kenya retains the death penalty, and there are currently more than 700 prisoners under sentence of death. There have been no executions in the past nine years, but many prisoners on death row have died as a result of the appalling prison conditions. A Kenyan high court judge recently described the prisons as "death chambers" and noted:
going to prison these days has become a sure way to a death certificate.
Amnesty International reports hundreds of political prisoners dying each year, the majority from infectious diseases resulting from severe overcrowding and shortages of food, clean water and adequate medical care. Exact figures are hard to come by, but the most recent official figures suggest that more than 800 prisoners died in the first nine months of 1995.
The Kenyan police have become notorious for their use of excessive lethal force. Less than a year ago, the shooting of three students by the police provoked widespread revulsion in the community, only to be followed in March this year by a further student being killed by the police, who followed up his murder by arresting and beating up his two companions.
As for the Kenyan Government's record on political freedoms, hon. Members will be aware that the last year has been dominated by preparations for the Kenyan general election, which, thankfully, has now been called for 29 December. Recently, Kenya has witnessed the use of force and intimidation by the existing regime in order to undermine the Opposition and thus the potential for free and fair elections.
Earlier this year, a loose alliance of Church groups, lawyers and reformers came together and launched under the banner of the National Convention Executive Council a new campaign with the aim of securing basic electoral reforms in advance of the general election. All but one of the demonstrations for reform organised by the NCEC have been broken up by the police and by supporters of KANU, the governing party.
On 10 October, when President Daniel Arap Moi was celebrating Moi day—his 19th year in power—his police were violently breaking up the most recent NCEC demonstration. People were beaten and tear-gassed by the police. Prominent NCEC supporters including Paul Muite, Ngengi Mugai—Jomo Kenyatta's nephew—and Richard Leakey were beaten so brutally that they left in ambulances. The police commander in charge personally physically thrashed an elderly and ailing Member of Parliament.
In a previous demonstration in July, 14 people were shot dead. Mothers carrying babies were beaten, students sitting exams at Nairobi university's school of architecture were beaten up and tear-gassed, and a lecturer had his arms broken. At the capital's All Saints cathedral,


the presidential security guard itself beat up the pro-Opposition clergy at prayer, spattering blood over the pews, and leaving one Church leader unconscious and soaked in blood.
The Kenyan Public Order Act requires meetings and demonstrations to be licensed in advance, and has been used to restrict meetings and rallies of Opposition groups. Sections of Kenya's penal code dealing with sedition and treason have formed the basis of the Government's ability to threaten their critics with detention.
In effect, some Opposition parties have been banned from the forthcoming election by the Government's refusal to allow them to register as political parties. The Safina party, led by lawyers Paul Muite and Mutari Kigano and the archaeologist and conservationist Richard Leakey, has not been allowed to register, and therefore cannot put forward candidates in the election. The Islamic party of Kenya has been banned outright.
The Kenyan constitution requires a successful presidential candidate to obtain at least 25 per cent. of the vote in five out of the country's eight regions. In key marginal areas such as Mombasa, there have been concerted attacks on northern settlers aimed at driving out potential Opposition voters—an activity that occurred in the earlier elections in 1992.
In the raids on Mombasa by ruling KANU supporters, 31 people have been reported as killed and hundreds forced to leave their homes and shelter for safety in the grounds of local churches. The Economist reported that it was revealed that the gang of 150 youths responsible for the attacks had been recruited, armed and trained in the coastal hinterland some months ago with orders to
keep the coast safe for KANU".
The tragic irony is that the present level of violence and loss of life is almost certainly unnecessary to sustain President Moi and his regime in power. A divided Opposition is President Moi's best guarantee of remaining in the State House, and his recent simple manoeuvre of offering some token reforms has yet again split his opponents asunder. That, plus the inevitable sprinkling of bribes, should ensure his re-election.
The real question is whether President Moi will use his last term of office to leave behind the inheritance of a prosperous, cohesive democracy, or the same monument to human greed as Mobutu did—a billion-dollar Swiss bank account. The abuse of human rights in Kenya stems from a regime that will do almost anything to sustain itself in power in order to be able to continue to plunder the country's resources.
Corruption is the motivating force for denial of and attacks on human rights in Kenya's beautiful but unhappy country. The corruption of the regimes of Mobutu and Moi, denounced by their own people as Moi-butu, is on such a scale and so all-pervasive in the system of government that we have been prompted to coin a new political term for such rule. Instead of democracy or aristocracy, the states have developed a kleptocracy: a system of government whose main purpose appears to be the plundering of the nation's resources by a kleptomaniac ruler—a kleptocrat.
The massive scale of corruption in Kenya has almost been counter-productive, as in recent months international donors have increasingly frozen or withdrawn support,

and the Kenyan currency has spiralled downwards. On 31 July, the International Monetary Fund suspended its $220 million loan programme to Kenya in the face of not only the refusal of Moi's Government to act against corruption but the direct involvement of members of the Government in corrupt practices.
The corrupt scams become increasingly bizarre. In one recent notorious scam called the Goldenberg scandal, implicating Saitoti, Moi's Vice-President, huge subsidies were gained from the Government to support the export of gold and diamonds by individuals associated with the Government. The only problem with that worthy policy is that there are no gold or diamond mines in Kenya from which to export. An honest customs commissioner tried to close a similar con on sugar importation, and was sacked by the President himself.
The latest Nairobi fashion in corruption is land-grabbing, which involves the simple appropriation of publicly owned land by corrupt politicians and civil servants. In Nairobi and other towns, public parks and gardens, school playgrounds and even graveyards have been allocated to individuals well connected to the ruling elite. While that theft is going on, the country's infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly. Many people go hungry and are uneducated, ill-clothed and unhealthy, while the tragedy of street children multiplies.
What can we do to help? Our new Government can serve in the coming period as a true friend of the Kenyan people. First, in the run-up to the elections in December, we should continue—as I know my right hon. and hon. Friends have done—to impress on the Kenyan Government in the strongest possible terms the need for abuses of human rights to stop, and the importance of fair elections in a climate free from violence and intimidation.
Secondly, we should review the adequacy of the scale of assistance that we are providing through non-governmental organisations which perform the task of monitoring elections. Thirdly, we should join other international donors, including the United States and the IMF, in an approach to the Kenyan Government to agree new ground rules on human rights, corruption and poverty elimination before loan facilities are renewed.
Finally, we should commence the process of redirecting all bilateral aid to Kenya through NGOs rather than the Kenyan Government, and review procedures for ensuring financial probity in all the assistance that we provide to Kenyan organisations.
Many of us were inspired by the original Mau Mau struggle and the ideals that they developed. I dream of a return to the ideals of Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya, which were hammered out in the freedom struggle and became expressed in the concept of Ujamaa, when Kenyatta said:
I stand for the purposes of human dignity and freedom and for the values of tolerance and peace.
I believe that our Government should assist the Kenyan people in standing once again for those virtues.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on securing this debate, and thank him and the Minister for allowing me to make a modest contribution in the short time available. I also thank


my hon. Friend for referring in the House to Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya, two heroes of African post-colonial politics.
I, too, am a long-standing friend, both of the people of Kenya and of their country. That friendship goes back 18 years, to when, as a teenager, I was a volunteer teacher in two Harambee schools. My hon. Friend mentioned the Mzungu community. I was a white teacher in that community—"Mimi mwalimu mzungu".
Since then, I have visited the country several times. I went back with my wife on our honeymoon, and returned shortly afterwards to take her to one of the schools at which I taught. Over the intervening decade, the school had changed from a single block in a mud-hut village with just a salt-water well to a multiple block in a village that had tap water—supplied through the international community.
From my very first time in Kenya, I was concerned about the lack of democracy. The first time that I was there, Oginga Odinga, the former Vice-President, was effectively in domestic exile. Shortly afterwards, leading literary figures, such as Ngugi Wa Thiong'o, were forced into real exile. On our honeymoon, we flew into a curfew in Nairobi, such was the political pressure for democracy and the resistance to it. More recently, I too have seen on television from these shores the savagery with which the pro-democracy demonstrators have been treated.
Those experiences lie behind a number of written questions that I have tabled in order to test exactly the Government's attitude in foreign policy to what we see in Kenya. Are we providing military or other assistance to the existing regime? What measures are we taking in our ethical foreign policy to ensure that pressure is brought to bear to bring democracy to true fruition?
I must say that I am slightly concerned by some of the answers that I have received, which do not reveal exactly what military assistance we have been giving, but do reveal that, notwithstanding what appear to be human rights abuses, we are still treating the country as eligible to receive military training at the very least.
I press the Minister to confirm that our ethical human rights policy is what it proclaims to be: that we will be led by the guiding light of human rights; that we will look cautiously at applications for military assistance; that we will do what we can to support the pro-democracy movement; and that, in particular, we will be vigilant in monitoring the progress in the lead-up to the elections on 29 December to ensure that there is no intimidation and the democratic process works properly and fulsomely, so that we can restore Kenya to the kind of country that Tom Mboya and Jomo Kenyatta wished it to be.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on introducing this very important debate. It could not be more timely, given the impending presidential and parliamentary elections in Kenya.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on expressing the great affection—it is important that the House expresses such affection—in which Kenya and the Kenyan people are

held by hon. Members and British people generally. It is important that that message is given, because it is important that we do not send a mixed signal about our ambitions and intent.
Our relations with Kenya are obviously long-standing. It is a measure of the importance that we as a country—and certainly the Government—attach to Kenya that, on my first official visit to Africa in June, not long after our general election, I decided to visit Kenya.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington gave a graphic account of the criticisms made of the Kenyan Government's human rights abuses. Indeed, earlier in the year and again in September, Amnesty International launched a document in which it went into considerable detail about its concerns. My hon. Friend has already cited some examples, such as the questions of arbitrary detention, killings by the police, detention without trial and numerous other grave and serious charges to which the Kenyan Government have to respond.
I raised such issues when I visited Kenya. I specifically raised Amnesty International's manifesto with the Attorney-General, Mr. Wako, and President Moi himself. The key points in the manifesto were the need for legal reform, the end to indefinite detention without trial, the need for reform of the press and media and the judicial system, an end to torture and ill-treatment of prisoners—an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made forcefully—and action on police killings. There is a legitimate demand that lethal force be countenanced only when unavoidable in order to protect lives.
At that time, and since that time, the Government have pressed all concerned on those issues and, more generally, on the need to avoid confrontation and to resolve differences—there are real differences in Kenyan society—through dialogue and not by resorting to violence.
We have called consistently for free and fair elections. We knew that the electoral cycle in Kenya meant that elections would have to take place this year, or possibly early next year. We have said specifically that free and fair elections are ones in which all those who want to vote can exercise that choice freely, all those who want to stand have the opportunity to do so, the electorate have access to the candidates through the media to help them to make their choice, and people can come together freely in support of the candidates of their choice.
The donor community—the Europeans, the United States and the Japanese—have made it clear that such conditions are necessary for proper elections. We have been consistent in our demand that that process take place.
The elections that have been announced are a great opportunity for the Kenyan people to take control of the destiny of their country. The election takes place against a backdrop of laws that have made the electoral process a subject of concern. The elections held in 1992 were widely seen not to have come up to the standards that we demand. The saving grace is that they were the first multi-party elections after a long period of one-party rule. We must insist that the elections this time are fought and won on a more acceptable basis than those of five years ago.
During the summer, there was considerable violence, much of it no doubt related to the anticipation of elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington


referred to several specific incidents, including that in the Anglican cathedral and another in which Paul Muite and Nengi Muigai, both of whom I know personally, were subjected to violent attack. We have made it clear to the Kenyan Government that we abhor violence from Opposition figures, state institutions or the Government's supporters. It has no place in Kenyan society.
I spoke at length with Church leaders when I was in Kenya, urging them to continue to play a constructive role, as they seek to do. Their initiative brought the different sides together to form the inter-parties parliamentary group. That has had positive results.
On 7 November, Parliament and the President approved three important reform Bills. One removed the principal legal instrument that has been used to harass Opposition politicians—the Public Order Act. When I was Opposition spokesman, I had direct experience of the operation of that Act, when a meeting that I was supposed to address was cancelled arbitrarily and at short notice. That did not ultimately prevent the meeting, but the intention was certainly to disrupt and reduce the audience.
I welcome the abandonment of that Act, which means that political meetings no longer require a licence. That takes them outside the immediate control of those with a political incentive. There is now simply a requirement to notify the police of public rallies.
The Preservation of Public Security Act has also been amended, removing the provisions for detention without trial, as has the penal code, with the replacement of the sedition laws, which had been used to prevent freedom of expression and to intimidate Opposition politicians. Importantly for the coming election, the constitutional provision preventing coalition government has now been changed.
We note the commitment of the Kenyan Government to allowing equitable access to publicly funded media. All parties must have access to the radio, in particular, to ensure free and fair elections. When the election was announced, we issued a statement calling for a peaceful election and insisting that all parties and candidates of national status should have access to the media on a fair basis, particularly to the radio.
We also note that a law has been passed to establish a constitutional review commission, which will draw from diverse sections of Kenyan society, with a two-year timetable to draw up fundamental reforms to present to Parliament.
We are not sanguine about the process. We do not think that it goes far enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the unacceptable continued refusal to register Safina as a political party. There can be no place in a democratic system for parties being arbitrarily forbidden to contest elections.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that with the Kenyan Foreign Minister as recently as the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in October. I am writing once again to the Kenyan Government, asking them to allow an urgent appeal against that refusal. I do not know whether that will be possible in time for the forthcoming election, but, if not, that will be a severe blot on the credibility of the election.
We shall follow the election campaign closely. The Department for International Development, together with the Swedes, the Danes and the Dutch, is jointly financing a $1.5 million project to help independent Kenyan non-governmental organisations to observe the elections. Those bodies include the National Council for Churches, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission and the Institute for Education in Democracy. We have also seconded staff to the international secretariat in Nairobi, which will co-ordinate the monitoring of the electoral process from start to finish. The election is important. The world has an interest in ensuring that it is fought on a free and fair basis.
We shall continue to be critical of all human rights abuses. We know about the problem of persistent police brutality. We recognise the evidence of tortures and deaths of prisoners and detainees and of excessive violence in crowd control, arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial killings. I have raised those issues with the Kenyan Attorney-General on at least two occasions. We shall continue to criticise excessive police violence, particularly incidents such as those of 7 July and 15 October. I wrote to the President about our concerns at that time, and the Foreign Secretary has raised the issues with the Kenyan Foreign Ministry.
Against that background, the Department for International Development is considering funding training courses for the Kenyan police. I want to disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough of his concerns. There are 4,000 British troops in Kenya on their own training exercises. We are simply using the training facilities offered by the Kenyans.
The only training that we offer the Kenyans is not on civilian control, but on peacekeeping duties on a wider basis throughout Africa. There is no large-scale military training programme that might give him concerns—which we would share. We are not training an armed force that is out of control.
I should add that the Kenyan army has a remarkably high standard of discipline, and there is little evidence of it being involved in the abuses that have been referred to.

Mr. McDonnell: The concerns are specifically related to the Kenyan police and its training.

Mr. Lloyd: The police training that we have provided has been limited to a training scheme for senior management, which includes a human rights component. We believe that that helps to improve the quality of the Kenyan police. The Department for International Development is considering a human rights training scheme, which we hope will focus on improving the human rights attitudes of the Kenyan police. We shall monitor how that works out. Those are important initiatives.
We look forward to the election. It is a new chapter in Kenya's history. We hope that it will be a multi-party election fought on a proper democratic basis. It is not for the British Government to choose the winners. It is up to us to work with whoever wins the election and to ensure that action is taken on corruption, an end to which is vital for the long-term economic future of Kenya, and human
rights abuses, on which the Kenyan Government are bound under international obligations to make progress. More generally, there is a need for constitutional reform to give sovereignty to the Kenyan people.
My hon. Friends are right to urge the Government to play their part in pressing those issues on the Kenyan Government—the current Government and whatever Government emerges after the election. We intend to

ensure that pressure is maintained on the Kenyan Government. We shall continue constructive private dialogue and, when circumstances warrant it, make public our concerns. My hon. Friends have taken part in that process.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor was asked—

Freedom of Information

1. Ms Julie Morgan: When he will publish the White Paper on freedom of information. [15090]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): A White Paper on our proposals for a freedom of information Bill will be published shortly.

Ms Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. How does he propose to make the information that will become available under the legislation accessible to the ordinary citizen, not just to lobbyists?

Dr. Clark: It will be important to give a great deal of publicity to the freedom of information Act. The code has been partly ineffective because of inadequate publicity. I also believe that the amount of press publicity surrounding freedom of information will ensure that virtually everyone is aware of the legislation.

Mr. Lansley: When the Chancellor of the Duchy publishes the White Paper, will he at the same time publish the advice that has been rendered to Ministers by officials about the scope of freedom of information and its method of application?

Dr. Clark: When we publish the White Paper, it will contain the Government's proposals for consultation. Part of the process of that debate will concern how we deal with information to Ministers. On the one hand we need to be as open as possible; on the other, we must retain the central confidences that will allow the business of good government to continue.

Mr. Bennett: Will the freedom of information legislation apply to devolved government in Scotland and Wales? If so, will it be introduced via the devolution legislation or by a subsequent Act of this House?

Dr. Clark: The parts of public information that relate to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly will be matters for those authorities. How we bring that about will be a matter of detail that we will examine as we work through the consultation period.

Mr. Maclennan: As much public business today is carried out on behalf of the Government by contractors in the private sector, will the Chancellor of the Duchy ensure that the White Paper does not exempt such contractors from the requirements of disclosure that would be in place if the business were carried out in-house by the Government?

Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman has a fair point. The nature of government has changed a great deal in recent years. With so much privatisation and contracting out, public business that would in the past have been

carried out by Government Departments is now being done by private organisations. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the Act, but this is the sort of issue that we are examining in the committee that is considering the White Paper.

Mr. Caplin: Will the Animal Procedures Committee under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 be part of the freedom of information Act, thus ending the shabby secrecy that vivisectionists have been able to hide behind under the Tories?

Dr. Clark: I believe that that particular legislation is one of the 200 Acts which contain clauses relating to the release or disclosure of information. If my memory is right in that respect, we shall deal with it in the White Paper. If not, I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Shephard: In the interests of freedom of information, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he found it necessary to make trips to Australasia, the United States and Canada in order to study open government? In connection with those trips, as reported in The Times on 20 October, we on the Conservative Benches at least hope that it is not the case that a smear campaign is being conducted against the right hon. Gentleman by a senior colleague—not, surely, something that we would want to expect from an open Government.

Dr. Clark: We on the Government Benches take the view that, if we are to modernise our constitution, the freedom of information legislation is very important. We also take the view that we will probably have only one opportunity to put such legislation on the statute book, so we must get it right on the first occasion. Therefore, I felt that it was right and proper not to reinvent the wheel but to learn from experiences elsewhere. It just so happens that, whereas the Conservative Government did not have the guts to face up to that difficult issue, we are prepared to grasp the nettle.
I felt it right and proper to go to the United States of America, which has a long history of freedom of information, and also to go to those three Commonwealth countries, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which have introduced freedom of information Acts in the past 15 years, so that when we compiled our legislation, we could ensure that, we were using the best practices from the experiences in those Westminster models.

Departmental Appointments

2. Miss Widdecombe: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of appointments to the press and information departments of Government Departments. [15091]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): All appointments to the permanent civil service—including those in press and information divisions—are made on the basis of merit through fair and open competition.

Miss Widdecombe: If that blameless description is true, and if there really is no politicisation of press and information appointments, as is widely reported, will the
hon. Gentleman explain why no fewer than eight senior civil servants in press and information departments have suddenly found an overwhelming desire to spend more time with their families?

Mr. Kilfoyle: First, the figure is seven, not eight. There are a variety of reasons for such changes. Bernard Ingham, in his memoirs, points out that, when Viscount Whitelaw returned from Northern Ireland, he was out of a job because Viscount Whitelaw brought his own press officer with him. It is a matter of public record that the chief press officer and the Minister without Portfolio have endorsed the impartiality of the press officer service within the civil service. That has been the case in the past, is the case at present and will remain the case in future.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Is not it rather rich of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to complain about the Government in this respect when the Conservative party was responsible for pumping tens of millions of pounds into Government propaganda campaigns which masqueraded as Government information?

Mr. Kilfoyle: However much the Conservative party pumped into propaganda when they were in government, they signally failed on I May. The Labour party made it abundantly clear before the election that it would be an integral part of a Labour Government's modus operandi to present their case effectively and impartially. Not only is it necessary for the Government to do that: it is their responsibility.

Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that seven press officers—:that is, about one third of the leading press officers in Government Departments—have found it impossible to work with the directives being issued to them by their Ministers makes it absolutely plain that what we are seeing is the politicisation by the Labour party of the civil service?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Needless to say, I completely reject that allegation; more important, so did Sir Robin Butler when he appeared before the Select Committee. It is perfectly in order that there should be staffing changes in press offices as elsewhere with the advent of a new Government. Indeed, without divulging the particulars of individual cases, there was a variety of reasons why people chose at that time to vacate their job in a Department.

Better Government Programme

Mr. Edwards:: If he will make a statement on the progress of his better government programme. [15092]

Dr. David Clark: We are making good progress in developing the better government White Paper, which will set out a vision for public service into the new millennium. Our aim is to make government simpler and more responsive to citizens. That will partly be achieved by using the latest developments in information technology to improve the services we offer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set the target that one quarter of Government services should be deliverable electronically within the next five years.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the better government initiative

should involve the talents and experience of those in local government, where a number of improvements in service delivery have already been introduced?

Dr. Clark: Yes. I think it essential that we involve ordinary citizens at every level of government. Ordinary citizens do not distinguish between tiers of government, whether central or local; all they are interested in is the quality of the service that they receive. The better government initiative aims to end the perception that government is only about queues and forms. I am determined that local government will be involved in the initiative because local government is involved in many exciting initiatives in service provision. In order to co-ordinate and learn from those experiences, I recently set up a working group as part of the central-local partnership initiative, so that we can look at the various pilots and try to spread best practice.

Mr. Jenkin: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has told me in a written answer that it is not Government policy for Ministers to be accessible by e-mail? With all the talk about better government and information technology, would it not be a good idea either for Ministers to have e-mail addresses instead of handing out a sheaf of replies consisting of "I will reply to the hon. Gentleman as quickly as possible", or for him to tell me that Ministers have no intention of having e-mail addresses?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman does not understand my answer correctly if he thinks that I am saying that it is not my policy to encourage Ministers to have e-mail addresses or to use them. In fact, I do have an e-mail address and it is public. My reply to the hon. Gentleman was that the information is not held centrally and therefore I cannot provide him with the answer for which he asks.

Mr. Coaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the better government programme is absolutely essential if we are to bring government closer to the people, overcome some of the cynicism people feel towards government and take better decisions in the future?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We fought the last election on the issue of the regeneration of our country, economic, social and democratic. Part of that appeal was the democratic appeal and, through our better government initiative, it is our hope and intention to involve many more of our citizens in the running of their country.

Non-departmental Public Bodies (Women)

Mrs. Ballard: What measures he will be taking to increase the number of women on the boards of executive NDPBs. [15093]

Mr. Kilfoyle: All Departments encourage women to apply for public appointments and are committed to fair selection procedures. As part of that process, Departments are currently drawing up individual plans for the increased representation of women on public bodies. Those plans will include specific targets for each Department and will cover the period 1998 to 2001.

Mrs. Ballard: The Minister will be aware that, of those women who currently hold public appointments, the vast
majority are in unpaid, not paid, appointments. When drawing up his targets, will the Minister ensure that there is a target for equal representation of women in paid as well as unpaid appointments?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is certainly the Government's policy to encourage women to participate at every level within what is commonly known as the quangocracy. The commissioner for appointments has set out a code of practice in which equal opportunity is a central element. In addition, the public appointments unit is actively seeking more women nominations to its list—it currently stands at 31 per cent. of its total—so that Departments have a ready reservoir of willing and-[HON. MEMBERS: Able."] That is not my word. I am talking about willing and well qualified women who are available for appointment to both paid and unpaid non-departmental public body jobs.

Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman consider looking at the staffing of foster homes, which are often privately run, many of which have been in the news lately for severe abuses of children? Does he agree that, if more older women were used to head those institutions, there would be less of the abuse that we keep reading about in our newspapers and which is such a disgrace? Older women would not have the wool pulled over their eyes in these matters.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not know if the hon. Lady is suggesting that the Government should nationalise private foster homes—I doubt whether she is. What the hon. Lady is suggesting is not within our remit, but I will pass on her comments to the appropriate Ministers.

Charter Objectives

Mr. Simon Hughes:: If Her Majesty's Government plan to provide for penalties or sanctions for non—compliance with charter objectives; and if he will make a statement. [15094]

Mr. Kilfoyle: We are committed to relaunching the charter programme so that it meets the needs and wishes of people who use public services on a daily basis. That is why we are currently consulting on how best to do this, including looking at issues of compliance. Details of the new programme will be published as part of the better government initiative.

Mr. Hughes: Are Ministers aware that the patients charter, to which the Government are committed, says:
From April 1995 the NHS is broadening the 18-month guarantee"—
that last word is in bold print—
of admission into hospital to cover all admissions into hospital.
When the Government took office, there were 155 people for whom there was no treatment in 18 months and, yesterday, we learned that there were 818 people for whom there was no treatment in 18 months. As a result of the guarantee being broken, will there be compensation for the individuals affected, will they be admitted to hospital, or is the guarantee—it is much more important than a pledge—worthless in terms of guarantees about NHS treatment under this Government?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Health in which he likened turning round the situation on waiting lists to turning round a super-tanker. The previous Government left a dreadful legacy, and that is why my right hon. Friend and the Government have taken immediate action, including the provision of £269 million this year. They have appointed a waiting list action team, led by Stephen Day, with task groups in each of the eight regions to ensure that by next March we have looked at that 18-month limit and are turning round the huge lists that were bequeathed to us by the last Government.

Quangos

Kali Mountford: What representations he has received about changes in the working practices of quangos. [15095]

Dr. David Clark: Over the past few years quangos have been roundly criticised for being too secretive, unaccountable and unrepresentative. Last week I published the "Opening Up Quangos" Green Paper, which addresses those criticisms and sets out our plans to make quangos more open, accountable and effective.
This is open to widespread consultation and I look forward to receiving the views of people from throughout the country.

Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome the Green Paper, which I am sure will shine light on the secretiveness and unaccountability of the quangos set up by the Conservative Government. Given my right hon. Friend's commitment to freedom of information, may I ask him whether quangos will be covered by a freedom of information Act?

Dr. Clark: We shall introduce a number of measures to open up quangos, including open annual meetings, publishing the minutes and annual reports. We are also, keen to encourage a wide cross-section of the community to become involved. The freedom of information legislation, as I said, will have wide coverage, right across Government. I cannot anticipate what the White Paper will contain, but I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the effectiveness of quangos essentially depends on who is selected to serve on them? When they consider that matter, will quangos refrain from selecting people purely on the basis of political correctness?

Dr. Clark: I am delighted that at long last the hon. Gentleman, and I hope his colleagues, have seen the light. We live in a pluralistic society, and it is important that quangos and other bodies that help to advise the Government represent a cross-section of our society. I believe that one of the reasons why quangos got such a bad name over the past 18 years was the manner in which the previous Government stuffed them with their own appointees.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister recognise that most citizens are not interested in changing the working practices of quangos, but rather in bringing them under direct democratic control, especially at local level?
Nowhere do people feel more strongly about that than in Northern Ireland. What steps do the Government intend to take to restore democracy to the Province?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The document that I produced last week referred to the 1,000 or so quangos that are national, but in addition to those, there are thousands that have regional, provincial or local application. I hope that out of the consultation and the on-going debate on democracy and about our devolution proposals, we will find it possible for some of the local and regional quangos to be subsumed by local government.

Open Government

Mr. Mullin: What action he plans to take to increase openness in government; and if he will make a statement. [15097]

Dr. David Clark: The White Papers on freedom of information and better government which I am preparing will both increase openness in government.
I believe that in a modern society, open government is good government. Our proposals will change radically the culture of government in Britain and the way in which public information is handled.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that reply, but who will decide what is to remain secret and what will not remain secret? Will it be the same civil servants who, as we saw during the Scott inquiry, are rather unenthusiastic about the concept of open government, or will there be an independent element in the appeals process?

Dr. Clark: It is important that any legislation on freedom of information includes a strong, fair and easy-to-use appeals system, and does not leave the individual helpless in his or her attempt to get information. There are various ways in which that can be achieved, but the Government are studying the model of an independent information commissioner.

Mr. Gill: The Government make much play about open government. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he considers that holding a referendum before publishing the Bill to which the referendum refers is no more than a crude opinion poll, not a referendum?

Dr. Clark: We had referendums in Scotland and Wales before powers were devolved, and we have made it clear that we will use the same instrument before we introduce regional government into England.

Non-departmental Public Bodies

Mr. Gerrard: How he intends to ensure the accountability of non-departmental public bodies. [15099]

Dr. David Clark: The Government are determined to make quangos more open and more accountable.
In our "Opening up Quangos" Green Paper we set out ways to improve the accountability of quangos. I am inviting Select Committees to have greater oversight of quangos, by looking at annual reports and by being

involved in the new five-yearly reviews. I also plan to introduce codes of practice and registers of interest to quango boards wherever possible.
I believe that these and many other proposals that we put forward will ensure that quangos become much more accountable to the people they serve.

Mr. Gerrard: I know that my right hon. Friend appreciates that the quango state that was created by the previous Government removed huge areas of public expenditure from democratic scrutiny, with boards meeting in private with members who were unknown to the general public. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as part of his proposals for openness, the name of every member of every quango will be made publicly available, as will their register of interests, in a form that will be easily accessible to the average member of the public?

Dr. Clark: My answer is yes. At the same time that we published the Green Paper last week, we ensured that it was available on the internet. I intend to ensure that the internet includes the names of all quangos, their aims and objectives, and overall financial information. In addition, it is my intention to ensure that the names of all individuals on quangos appear on the internet, with the odd exception where one or two specialist committees deal with security or with the security of the individual, which might be at risk from publication.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister able to give an assurance that it is his policy that henceforth all quangos will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee? Will he concur that the best way to deal with quangos is to abolish many of them and return their powers to democratically elected local councils? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, when he is replacing clapped-out Tory placemen, he will not simply introduce Labour placemen?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises some serious points. First, we are trying to examine the raison d'etre of every quango to ensure that there is a reason for that body continuing to exist. Secondly, I have already said that we see a future, when considering regional and local quangos, for discussion to ascertain whether these bodies could be incorporated into the local government structure. That is the sort of issue that will be raised when we introduce our central-local government initiative. We have already discussed that.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise that we live in a pluralistic society. It is right and proper that people from all sections and strands of the community are represented on quangos.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on progress towards legislation on freedom of information. [15100]

Dr. David Clark: I intend to publish a White Paper on freedom of information shortly, and after a period of consultation this will be followed by a draft Bill.

Mr. Barnes: Will it be seen that no excessive charges are made for accessing freedom of information, so that


the information will begin to be readily available? As the process will take a while, with the publication of a White Paper and ensuing legislation, can things be done in the meantime to open up the secrecy of the state?

Dr. Clark: It is essential that costs should not be a deterrent when use is sought of the eventual Act. As my hon. Friend says, some time will pass before that Act is on the statute book. It is important that we continue our efforts as a Government to be more open. We shall be encouraging the flexible use of the code. I am encouraging my colleagues to be more proactive about the release of information. Right hon. and hon. Members may have noticed that yesterday we took an opportunity to show our commitment to openness by releasing MI5 documents from the Public Record Office.

Mr. Soames: Does the Minister accept that freedom of information itself is necessarily no panacea for better government? What arrangements does he intend to make for the advice that is given by officials to Ministers? Will that advice be subject to the same rules, or is he intending to alter them and thus make it likely that officials will restrain themselves in giving full and frank advice?

Dr. Clark: It is quite clear to us that open government is part of modern government and good government. I have already made the point that, at some time, one has to make a balanced judgment between openness, which informs our citizens, and confidentiality, which is essential to the workings of government. We feel that our responsibility is to provide good government, and we certainly intend to ensure that we get that balance right.

Special Advisers

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What are the principal provisions of the contracts of special advisers; and what steps he is taking to ensure that they do not undermine the integrity and impartiality of the civil service. [15101]

Dr. David Clark: The model contract for special advisers sets out the terms and conditions under which they are employed. For the first time under this Government a copy was placed in the Library of the House in June. It distinguishes clearly the role and responsibilities of special advisers and reinforces the integrity and impartiality of the permanent civil service.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. What action is he taking to ensure that, where statements by special advisers are dishonest, misleading and inaccurate, disciplinary action is taken? I refer in particular to matters relating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not important that the traditional professionalism of the civil service is in no way undermined by the activities of special advisers?

Dr. Clark: It is absolutely essential that the political neutrality and integrity of the civil service is maintained. The draft contracts make that quite clear. They also lay out quite specifically the terms and conditions under which the special advisers operate, and make it quite clear that they can be more free in speaking to the press on political matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

The Prime Minister was asked—

Miss Widdecombe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November. [15120]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Prime Minister spare the time to enlighten the House about the statement that he made last week, with what he described as enthusiasm and relish, on payments to the Labour party, when his enthusiasm and relish miraculously dried up so that he did not reveal the issue of the second payment? When he answers that question, could he do so with uncharacteristic frankness and humility, and without giving his usual impression of a Cheshire cat?

The Prime Minister: There was no further payment—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after statements.

The Prime Minister: There was no further payment, as I have said. I would just point out to the hon. Lady that we returned the donation. We refused more donations. We consulted Sir Patrick Neill. We followed his advice. We published that advice. I do not believe that the Conservative party would ever have done the same in our position.

[15121] Mr. Winnick: In view of the £10 million to £14 million that Ecclestone gave to the Tories previously, as well as the £1 million given to us before the election, is there not a case for changing the law to limit the amount of money that any private individual can give to political parties? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all political parties represented in the House should be forced to declare to the last penny where their money comes from and to return all stolen money? Does he recognise that, if we are to reform party financing, we should do so soon and do so thoroughly? That is what the public want, and it is what Labour Members of Parliament want.

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why the terms of reference for Sir Patrick Neill should be as broad as possible. I also believe, to take up the point that my hon. Friend made, that it is important—and I have proposed this—that Sir Patrick Neill is able to look at all the donations that have been made, the names of the donors and the amounts, going back to 1992— [Interruption.] I am perfectly prepared, for myself, to have it go back 10 years.
I am delighted to say that, since I wrote to the leaders of the two other main parties, the leader of the Liberal Democrats has agreed to that proposition. I hope that the leader of the Conservative party will now agree to that proposition as well.

Mr. Hague: When was the £1 million given back to Mr. Ecclestone?

The Prime Minister: We have said that we will give the money back. [Interruption.] We have already made arrangements to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] We have already made arrangements to do so, and it will be done in the next few days.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister just told my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the money had been returned. Are we to understand, five minutes into Question Time, that his first answer was not correct?

The Prime Minister: As we have made clear, we sought the advice of Sir Patrick Neill. We have followed that advice: we have followed it to the letter. I now think that the right hon. Gentleman should say whether he is prepared to accede to what both the leader of the Liberal Democrats and I have already agreed to.

Mr. Hague: I would have thought that, in this week of all weeks, even this Prime Minister would not be on his high horse—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment, Mr. Hague. I will have silence in this House when Members are asking questions. They must be heard.

Mr. Hague: I would have thought that, in this week of all weeks, even this Prime Minister would not be on his high horse in the Chamber. I will make my recommendations and proposals to the Neill committee; I will not prejudge its conclusions as the Prime Minister seems to.
Now we know that, when the Prime Minister told the House last week that he had already followed Sir Patrick Neill's advice to the letter, he had not actually done so, and he has still not actually done so. But, given that the Prime Minister has said that he ruled out further donations from Mr. Ecclestone on 5 November, why has the Minister without Portfolio said that he knew about such donations and ruled them out in October? Who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister or his sidekick?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear, as I did in my television interview, that the decision was taken on 5 November—before, I may say, any press inquiry was made at all.

Mr. Hague: Well, we can take it from that that the Minister without Portfolio was not telling the truth in his statement.
Let us explore this a little further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] I can understand why Labour Members do not want it to be explored a little further. Given that the

Prime Minister has said that he ruled out further donations on 5 November, why did he ask Sir Patrick Neill two days later whether further donations could be accepted?

The Prime Minister: Because we had already made it clear in the letter to Sir Patrick Neill—which the right hon. Gentleman keeps quoting one part of, but not the other—that we had thus far refused the further donation. We therefore asked his advice about whether it was right to do so. We were advised that it was right to do so. We followed that advice.

Mr. Hague: Well, I have a letter here. It does say, as the Prime Minister says,
The position which we have adopted thus far has been to refuse this ⁠ donation".
Then it says:
but we wish to be advised whether this is a position which we need to maintain.
It also says:
we should consult you on whether it may properly be accepted.
Are we to understand that, the next time the Prime Minister tells us that he has ruled something out—of course—he will take advice two days later on whether to do it after all? Does this explain why the Minister without Portfolio said on Saturday that the Government had behaved with complete propriety, but has gone on today to say that they have been behaving out of character?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman has just read out to me is precisely the answer that I gave him a moment ago. While we are on this topic, in June he promised that he would publish a full list of donors to the Conservative party. As far as I am aware, he has not published a single name. In August, the Conservative party said that it would publish its accounts, but it has not so far done so. It said that it would give back the money that it received from Asil Nadir, but it has so far not given it back.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats has agreed with me— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: The leader of the Liberal Democrats has agreed with me that we should disclose the names of donors and the amounts going back to 1992. [Interruption.] It is not a question of waiting for Sir Patrick Neill's conclusions; it is about the terms of reference. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree to those terms of reference or not?

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has already had to admit that he has not handled this matter well. He should not make it worse by failing to answer questions that are put to him in the House. Is it not extraordinary that the Government denied that the Labour party received money from Mr. Ecclestone and then admitted it; denied that the donation was £1 million and then admitted it; denied that the crucial meeting had been minuted and then published the minutes; denied the House a full account of the matter, which instead had to be dragged out piece by piece; and denied that the Labour party would accept further donations and then took advice on accepting them?


Has not the Prime Minister's conduct been a shabby tale of evasion, which voters, when asked to trust him in future, will not lightly forget?

The Prime Minister: People who are watching this exchange will not forget that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to say why—he will have to answer the question at some point—he refuses to agree terms of reference that would allow Sir Patrick Neill to go back over the period from the 1992 general election onwards. The only reason why the newspapers or the Conservative party can go through Labour's donors is that we publish their names. The right hon. Gentleman has not published anything: no one knows where a penny of Tory money comes from. Before he criticises the Labour party, he should tell us where that money comes from and who gave it to the Conservative party. He should go back five years, as we are prepared to do. Until he does that, no one will pay the slightest attention to his criticisms.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the status and progress of his social exclusion unit? [Interruption.] Are not the objectives of his Administration the modernisation of Britain and the attainment of social justice? In Wales, many of our fellow citizens have no meaningful work, and have no hope for the future. How does he intend to tackle the problems that he has inherited from the Conservatives?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I am surprised that Conservative Members jeer about the problems that many people face. It is precisely because we believe in a proper approach to tackling not just unemployment but levels of truancy, exclusions from school, poor housing and poor educational opportunity that we have established the social exclusion unit, which will examine these problems in a proper and co-ordinated way. It is important that people realise that at long last they have a Government who take seriously the unity and cohesion of this nation.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister tell us which, in his view, should come first, an early pledge or a long-term objective?

The Prime Minister: It is important, of course, that we fulfil all the pledges that we gave to the electorate at the last general election, and we will fulfil them all. At the next general election we will be held to account for the performance that we have given.

Mr. Ashdown: I take it from that that an early pledge comes first, in which case will the Prime Minister explain why today the Chancellor is going around telling us that the Government's revenues are so buoyant that he can fulfil his long-term objective of a lop tax rate next year whereas the Secretary of State for Health is saying that he cannot—in five years—guarantee that the Government will deliver on their early pledge of lower waiting lists than we had under the Tories? Does the Prime Minister realise that people simply will not understand a Labour Government who say that they have enough money to spend on lower tax rates but not enough to deliver their own early pledges on lower waiting lists?

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that my right hon. Friend did not say that, because of course we will

fulfil the pledge that we have made to cut waiting lists by 100,000 or more from what we inherited from the previous Conservative Government.
I say to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, since I anticipated that he might raise this, that I went back and looked at the Liberal Democrat pledges before the last election. Before the election the Liberal Democrats asked that over the first two years of the Labour Government we put an extra £1.1 billion into the national health service. We are actually going to put £1.5 billion into the national health service, but now they say that that is not enough. Secondly, they asked for some £500 million to go into a school repairs programme. We are actually providing £1.3 billion and now they say that that is not enough. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he should learn the difference between opposition and opportunism.

[15123] Mr. Illsley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite 19 years of fiddled figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nineteen years?"] —a legacy of the last Conservative Government is a level of unemployment that is still unacceptably high, especially in my constituency where unemployment above the national average. I echo my right hon. Friend's welcome for the employment chapter in the treaty of European Union, and I urge him to use our presidency of the EU next year to take advantage of whatever initiatives there are to alleviate unemployment throughout the European Union, including in Great Britain and in my constituency.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I think that it was 18 years of Conservative Government, but it seemed like 19 at the time. What is happening at the jobs summit this week in Luxembourg is tremendously important for the future of methods to tackle in particular long-term unemployment in the European Union. The Government have proposed a range of measures which focus particularly on education, on skills and on tackling youth and long-term unemployment.
I very much hope that the summit indicates a new approach by the whole of Europe in which we focus particularly on how we encourage the employability and adaptability of the work force. If we can achieve that at this summit, it will show the advantage of having a sensible, constructive approach to Europe that allows us to achieve the objectives that we all want.

Mr. Hammond: Will the Prime Minister explain what he sought to achieve in asking Sir Patrick Neill's advice on 7 November about the propriety of accepting a further donation from Mr. Ecclestone when he has already told the House that he decided on 5 November not to accept such a donation?

The Prime Minister: For the very reason that I have just given, which is that, having taken the decision to refuse further donations, it was important that we got his advice as to whether we had taken the right decision. We got his advice and we followed that advice. [Interruption.] That is precisely what we have said and, as I say, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that, in the 20 years of Conservative Government, there was never any potential conflict of interest. But for the first time a Government actually took


the watchdog's advice. We followed that advice, whereas the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member would never have done the same thing.

Mr. Dalyell: What conclusions are we to draw from Madeleine Albright's discovery that not a single Arab country would support military action against Iraq?

The Prime Minister: All countries are concerned to ensure that Saddam Hussein obeys the United Nations security resolutions that were passed at the conclusion of the Gulf war. The reason why it is important that he does abide by those resolutions is that they concern the making of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. If he is allowed to carry on developing those weapons, the dangers, not just for the middle east, but for the whole world, are obvious and clear. He has deceived people, used chemical weapons on his own people, and invaded other countries without any possible justification. It is absolutely essential that he backs down on this—that he be made to back down. We will, of course, seek a diplomatic solution, but he has to back down because, if he does not, we will simply face this problem, perhaps in a different and far worse form, in a few years' time.

Mr. Bercow: If the Prime Minister had decided on 5 November— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on!"] I understand that Labour Members do not want to hear the question, but they will have to suffer in silence. If the Prime Minister had decided on 5 November that he definitely did not want to take further donations, why ask Sir Patrick Neill's permission to do so? Is not the truth of the matter that the Prime Minister was begging Sir Patrick to give him the green light to take more money?

The Prime Minister: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman should ask such a question as I understand that his last employment was as special adviser to Jonathan Aitken.

Mr. Bercow: rose

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems able to shake his head. Perhaps he will indicate whether he will support me in saying that donations over £5,000 for the past five years should be disclosed to Sir Patrick Neill. Does he agree with that or not? Conservative Members cannot answer it because they do not dare.

Mr. Caton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that evidence of already deprived and disadvantaged children being accommodated in children's homes and then physically and sexually abused shames our whole society? Will he assure the House and the country that the Government will respond to the Utting report with urgent and tough action?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that there is to be a statement on this shortly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Utting report does detail an exceptionally bad record of neglect, mismanagement and abuse. Obviously, we will study the conclusions carefully, but it is essential, after long years of neglect, that we clean the situation up, and we will do it.

Official Visit

Mr. Steen: If he will make an official visit to White Rock above the River Dart, near Totnes. [15127]

The Prime Minister: I think this is the second time that I have been asked to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that he does not mind if I say that I do not have any plans to do so, although I visit all regions.

Mr. Steen: That answer will be a great relief to my constituents.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that White Rock is just a few miles from the home of the D'Oyly Carte at Coleton Fishacre, and that the D'Oyly Carte opera company may close next month, despite its popularity, simply because the Arts Council operates a cartel which prevents new entrants, however meritorious, from getting on its little list? Surely he does not wish to preside over a Government who will allow one of our great and precious British institutions to collapse when more than £200 million is unspent in the Arts Council's lottery fund.

The Prime Minister: We are continuing the policy of the previous Government. I do not know about the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I shall be happy to write to him about it. I will make a deal with him—if I do not go to his constituency, he will not come to mine.

Mr. Gill: I want to return to the question of tobacco sponsorship. Will the exemption of formula one from the ban on tobacco sponsorship affect the financial success of Mr. Ecclestone's long-postponed flotation of Formula One Holdings?

The Prime Minister: I have absolutely no idea about that, but in any event the exemption is right. As I pointed out last week, every other country that runs grand prix either has no sponsorship restrictions or makes special arrangements or grants exemptions for formula one. Australia, Canada, France, Germany and other countries all do that. It is important that we do it as well, because we do not want to lose the industry and the jobs associated with it.
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was his party, when last in government, which blocked the European Union directive. We are trying to ensure that we get the maximum action on advertising in sponsorship to try to reduce the level of smoking—but in a way that does not damage sport or the industry.

Mr. Clapham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that research has shown clearly that white asbestos is a carcinogen? Some countries in Europe have already banned white asbestos and any manufactures that include white asbestos. Is he further aware that the Health and Safety Commission supports a Europewide ban and that there are substitutes for asbestos? Will he seriously examine the case for a United Kingdom ban so that we can protect future generations of workers?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend, who is right to draw attention to the issue. My understanding is that the Health and Safety Commission has advised Ministers on a mechanism and timetable for introducing


a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of white asbestos. An announcement will be made shortly on how the Government intend to proceed. I know from the work that my hon. Friend has done on this matter over a number of years that he has had a long-standing commitment to a ban. I hope that shortly we will be able to give him the answer that he wants.

Mr. Sanders: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to European Union directive 91/439. Is he aware that the directive will affect 350,000 insulin-dependent diabetics by making it illegal for them to drive vehicles in groups C and D? Is he further aware that the decision has not been based on any actuarial evidence? Will he look at the matter urgently before diabetics start to lose their jobs in January because of restrictions on their licences?

The Prime Minister: The problem is that the current legislative position, which was introduced in 1991, reflects the advice of the expert advisory panel on diabetes and driving. To make a change, we would have to be sure that new scientific evidence and advice would justify a change to the original conclusion reached by the previous Government. If such evidence emerges, we would be happy to review the position, but until it does it would be difficult for us to argue the case for changing the directive. If the hon. Gentleman has any further information or if he wishes to draw our attention to different scientific advice from that which we have received, I suggest he submit it to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their consideration.

Solar Energy

Mrs. Brinton: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on solar energy. [15131]

The Prime Minister: The Government propose a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with our manifesto commitment. The policy review announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry will consider what will be necessary and practicable in order to achieve 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010. That is an ambitious target, but we believe that, if we put the right commitment into it, it will be possible. That will obviously make a substantial contribution to the measures that we need for the Kyoto summit.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the solar energy economy requires dispersed forms of energy conversion and supply, rather than the massive centralised power stations of today's electricity industry? Does he agree also that if we

develop and maintain solar energy, we will return power and real autonomy to the regions—not only in the United Kingdom but in the rest of the world?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, of course-[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members may cavil, but it is a serious problem that the country has to deal with. We believe in increasing the amount of our energy resources that come from renewable energy, and we are encouraged by the growing use of solar energy. The trouble is that solar energy is still very expensive. We are putting more money into research, and we will make progress on it as soon as we possibly can.

Waiting Lists

Dr. Harris: When he expects the Government's commitment to reduce waiting lists to the levels of 1 May to be achieved. [15132]

The Prime Minister: The appalling situation that we inherited from the previous Government, who consistently undermined the national health service, means that we will have to make progress as quickly as we possibly can. The extra £300 million that will be provided over and above what was allocated by the previous Government will be of enormous assistance in doing so.

Dr. Harris: Although I agree that the health service inherited problems, is the Prime Minister aware what a disappointment his answer will be to sick and elderly people in Oxford, West and Abingdon and elsewhere? Whereas it will take five years to implement an early pledge to cut waiting lists, as a first step, funds seem to be available to achieve the long-term aim of cutting taxes for the well-off. Is it not time that the Government governed, rather than merely acting opportunistically on their pre-election pledges?

The Prime Minister: We will fulfil our pre-election pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Opposition Members shout out, "When?", but they are the people who put up the waiting lists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They deny responsibility. It was nothing to do with them, was it? As I told the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in the next two years, we will put more money into the national health service than the Liberal Democrats wanted us to before the general election.
Waiting lists have increased because of the situation that we inherited. Our pledge is that, at the next general election—when we again stand before the British people—we will have reduced waiting lists by 100,000 or more. We will deliver on that pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] As for Opposition Members, they are the people who undermined the health service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they are. This week marks the 100th anniversary of Nye Bevan's birthday. We established the national health service, in the teeth of Tory opposition, and we will rebuild the national health service, after 18 years of Tory disgrace.

Utting Report

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The House will know that, last year, after the conviction of people in north Wales for sexual and other crimes against children in their care, the previous Government commissioned Sir William Utting to conduct a review of the adequacy of safeguards against the abuse of children living away from home. They also established a judicial tribunal of inquiry, under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, into the events that led to those convictions. The north Wales judicial inquiry, chaired by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, continues and is expected to report next summer.
Sir William Utting has now reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and to me. Today, we are publishing his report. A comparable review for Scotland is being published today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Sir William's review was necessary because of continuing revelations of widespread sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children living away from home—in particular, in children's homes—over the preceding 20 years. In addition to the convictions in north Wales, there are investigations or prosecutions in progress in the north-west, the north-east, south Wales and some home counties.
The report presents a woeful tale of failure at all levels to provide a secure and decent childhood for some of the most vulnerable children. It covers the lives of children whose home circumstances were so bad that those in authority, to use the jargon, took them into care. The report reveals that, in far too many cases, not enough care was then taken. Elementary safeguards were not in place or not enforced. Many children were harmed rather than helped. The review reveals that those failings were not just the fault of individuals—although individuals were at fault. It reveals the failures of a whole system.
The review team found evidence of good work done by many children's homes despite adverse circumstances. It considers that residential care remains an important option for looking after children in trouble, but that staffing is a chronic problem.
The report reveals a list of major faults. Many children are placed in homes unsuited to their particular needs because there is too little choice, too little planning and too little forethought. Some children go through a damaging succession of placements. Children are at risk in small unregistered homes. More than a third of children in residential care are not receiving an education. Children in foster care can be at risk of abuse, and safeguards intended in the Children Act 1989 are not being uniformly implemented.
There is no requirement for residential maintained special schools to be inspected for welfare purposes. Some children abscond from residential care and become homeless, and some remain untraced. In the past, children who ran away and were traced were often returned to the care of the people who were abusing them.
Disabled children, children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and young children are at higher risk of abuse or harm when living away from home. Bullying and sexual abuse by other foster children

is encountered. Bullying appeared to be ignored in some children's homes. The mix of fearsome children and vulnerable children amounts to abuse by the system that is supposed to provide protection.
Vetting child care staff and foster parents must be improved. Unacceptable delays arise in checking criminal records. Staff who suspect child abuse can be deterred from coming forward for fear of victimisation by other staff or managers. Some directors of social services say that they are reluctant to dismiss staff, as their decisions can be overturned on appeal.
The criminal justice system is ineffective in deterring offences against children and in securing convictions. Its failures are most marked where the victims are most vulnerable—the very young and the disabled.
Prison Service policy to keep children in separate accommodation is not being achieved. As a result, there is suicide, self-harm and endemic bullying. Boys aged 15 to 16 are still being remanded to prison because there is not enough secure accommodation.
The report concludes that, although there are no grounds for complacency—and, by God, there should not be—the repetition of abuse in children's homes on the scale that has occurred in the past is now unlikely.
The report makes 20 principal recommendations designed to improve safeguards in foster and residential care, in schools and in the penal system to provide more effective safeguards and checks to deter abusers from working with children, more effective avenues of complaint and independent advocates to whom children should have access, more vigilant management, effective disciplinary and criminal procedures and effective systems of communication between agencies about known abusers. The report also calls for changes to ensure that the criminal justice system provides children with better protection from abusers.
I thank those who produced the report. The situation that it describes cannot be allowed to recur or—where it continues—continue any further. It must provide a spur to all concerned to ensure that, in future, children living away from home for long periods get a safe, decent and positive upbringing.
This is a most serious report, and the Government are taking it most seriously. We have set in train the following action. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has today published a report on young prisoners which reaches many of the same conclusions as Sir William Utting. The Home Office is ensuring that standards to safeguard young people in prison, which are being developed by the Prison Service, incorporate the welfare aims recommended in the report.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Wales will be making improvements to the welfare safeguards for children in maintained boarding schools and will be working with the education service to achieve that. The chief inspector of social services in England is assessing local authorities' compliance with essential management and staffing safeguards which are supposed to be in place already. The Welsh Office is implementing with determination the Adrienne Jones report on child care and protection.
The Department of Health and the Welsh Office are already committed to two important changes recommended by the report: the creation of a statutory


general social care council to regulate standards of conduct and practice by social services personnel, and the statutory regulation and inspection of small children's homes.
We are actively reviewing the way in which the courts treat children and other vulnerable witnesses. We are preparing a White Paper on social services that will set out detailed proposals for improvements in the regulation of social services. With the encouragement of the Prime Minister, we are setting up a ministerial task force—to be led by me—involving Ministers from all relevant Departments and a small number of expert advisers from outside the Government. Its first job will be to prepare the full, comprehensive Government response to the report.
We will be consulting widely and carefully with all the public and voluntary agencies concerned before giving that detailed and comprehensive response. The report acknowledges that the review panel was not able to assess the costs of implementing its recommendations or what the spending levels on children's services should be. It also emphasises that any extra resources must be matched by managerial and professional effort to improve performance.
The recommendations made in the report will be considered as part of the comprehensive spending review, covering the whole range of services for children, including social services, juvenile and criminal justice and education. After careful consideration and consultation, we will put forward a full programme of policy and management changes to deliver the safer environment to which children living away from home are entitled. The programme will be clear, affordable and enforceable. It will ensure that high standards are set and that whatever standards are set will be met.
Finally, I should make it clear that many dedicated people are doing a good job looking after vulnerable children living away from home. It is never an easy task, and they deserve our thanks. We owe it to them and to the children they look after to root out and punish the wrongdoers and to put into place a system that helps rather than hinders their efforts. Vulnerable children living away from home are the responsibility of us all. Many of them have been badly let down. This Government will ensure that in future they are looked after better.

Mr. John Maples: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for the very prompt publication of Sir William Utting's work. I thank Sir William and his team for the enormous amount of work and effort that must have gone into the report.
The level and extent of child abuse have horrified many us. When stories first started to emerge some years ago, I frankly found it difficult to believe that they were true. There have now been so many such stories that there can be absolutely no doubt about their nature and extent. Sir William Utting's report lists a catalogue of failure in that respect. The problem has to be addressed. The previous Government began that process and set up the inquiry. We shall support the present Government in carrying forward the process.
We are talking about the most vulnerable people in society. They have often already been abused. Their natural family arrangements have broken down, and foster

arrangements have often broken down, too. There may be only a few thousand such children, but they are children for whom the state has assumed the role of parent. We owe it to them to do better, protecting them from abuse at the least.
None of that should detract from the fact that many, many dedicated people work with and care for such children. The appalling cases of abuse that too frequently arise should not stop us acknowledging the excellent work that is done. I think that I am right in believing that most abuse takes place in residential care and less in foster care, because it is easier to detect in foster care.
As fostering has, rightly, become more widespread, residential care has declined. There are relatively few people with experience of managing residential care. That presents problems for commissioning and inspection. Perhaps we need to consider commissioning and the provision of care on a regional, or even national, basis. Perhaps inspection should follow a similar pattern. Many county councils do not provide care directly, and children are often placed away from their local authority area, leading to less frequent visits and inspections. In addition to the welcome action that the Secretary of State has announced, will he consider implementing regional arrangements, in an attempt to overcome the problems that some county councils have?
Many children are in care because fostering arrangements have broken down. Will the Secretary of State consider giving even more encouragement to greater training and support for fostering in difficult cases, when that might help to keep the fostering arrangement alive? That would keep more children out of residential care.
Strong measures have already been implemented to keep paedophiles out of child care. I am told that they are working, but different blacklists cause a great deal of complexity. Will the Secretary of State see whether there is a way of combining into one list all the different registers that it is incumbent on social services departments to inspect?
Often those under suspicion resign before they are sacked, and criminal charges are not brought. They can often escape being placed on the registers. Can the Secretary of State find a way of ensuring that they go on the registers? Should the registers contain more soft intelligence about suspicions, even when there has been no dismissal or criminal charge?
We all realise that a balance has to be struck between individual rights and the interests of children, but does the Secretary of State think that we should move further in the direction of the protection of the child, even if that means some erosion of people's rights? Perhaps working with children in residential care should be seen as a privilege to be earned rather than a right.
We are at one with the Government in wishing to do everything possible to ensure that those vulnerable children for whom the state has taken on the role of parent are protected from abuse. I assure the Secretary of State that we shall give positive and constructive consideration to any proposals to achieve that which he may bring before the House.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and our initial response. I share his concern about children being placed in homes of any sort far from their local authority area. The more indirect and


distant the location of the children, the more difficult supervision becomes. We are stepping up work on recruiting foster parents and giving them additional training and encouragement. Most foster parents do a good job, but we have to remain eternally vigilant about the possibility of abuse by the vile minority of foster parents.
We are working with the Home Office on an effort to establish a common list of people who should not be employed in any way in the care of children or be involved with them. We intend to include what is euphemistically described as soft information on those lists. However, there is a balance to be struck. It will always be difficult to decide what should be done in such cases, but if a person has been accused of offences against children in a succession of previous locations, but never tried or found guilty, given the weight of evidence, the balance should be in favour of protecting children from them.

Mr. Joe Ashton: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the report. Is he aware that, because of the incidents that he has mentioned, some of us have severe doubts about reducing the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16? I refer to the dangers of boys being abused by persons in positions of trust, care or authority.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Court would rule that we must come into line with the general age of consent at 16 in Europe, but that many European countries have exemptions for young people in positions of trust, care and authority? Is it not time the age of consent was 18 for boys and girls in these circumstances? That might make it more difficult for a carer or a person in authority to make an approach.
Will my right hon. Friend convey what I am saying to the Home Secretary, in addition to what we have told him in private meetings? I am not alleging that homosexuals are paedophiles; far from it. Many of us are not against 16 as the age of homosexual consent, but we are extremely concerned about vulnerable boys and girls.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Other Ministers and I are indeed considering linking a change in the homosexual age of consent to 16—I would support that—to the introduction of a law that would make sexual activity with young persons by people in authority, heterosexual or homosexual, unlawful and punishable.
There is a great deal of heterosexual abuse in children's homes, and we must use every measure available to us to stop it. We may come up with proposals to bring the age of consent for any sexual activity down to 16, but to raise it for cases involving the exploitation of a position of authority. That goes not just for children's homes but for teachers, football coaches and anyone else.

Mr. Paul Burstow: In adding my party's welcome for the report and the Minister's statement, I also have a number of questions to ask him. I hope that the message that will go out is that the rehabilitation of residential care is an important element in the whole provision of child care.
In respect of the task force, will the Minister be able to tackle the Berlin walls between education, health and social security—walls that often get in the way—

Mr. David Hinchliffe: And social services.

Mr. Burstow: Indeed. Those walls get in the way of dealing with child care services in the right manner.
Does the Minister agree that, if Government Departments in Whitehall cannot co-ordinate their activities, we cannot expect town halls to do so?
Will the task force also become a standing committee that can deal with the development, implementation and oversight of a child care strategy? There clearly needs to be monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations.
Will the Minister publish any reasons why the task group might decide not to implement any of the 20 key recommendations?
Can the Minister offer us any reassurance in relation to finding ways of instilling confidence in staff who may suspect a colleague of abusing someone in care? Such people need fast-track access to confidential briefings of managers in which they can raise such matters.
Will the Secretary of State take up the point in Sir William's report that, with only 8,000 places now available in residential care, there is a need for greater choice and a need to address that expansion in a controlled way with quality at its heart? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman look urgently at the fact that the Government's funding review will not report until next summer? Urgent action is needed. Next summer is too far away. Will the right hon. Gentleman return to the House with a statement on the release of resources into this area sooner rather than later?
Liberal Democrat Members will do all we can to support the Government in taking forward the recommendations, because we believe that we in the House, those in the town halls, and everyone involved in the care of children, must do better and must do more in future.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and the Government's initial response. My personal view is that, to some extent, because of the emphasis on the superiority of care in the community, people working in residential care for all sorts of people, not just young people, have felt themselves to be regarded as second best, second rate, and not receiving the attention that they deserve. Some of the things that have happened may well have been a product of that feeling. We must restore morale among the staff.
With regard to Berlin walls, the task force, which I shall lead, will include senior representatives from the various Departments. As the hon. Gentleman says, if we in Whitehall cannot work together, it is difficult to expect people in town halls and county halls to do so in the way that we expect.
We shall report to the House in due course on our full response to the report. We have already taken some action, by way of advice, on helping staff who feel that things are going wrong to report that things are going wrong. I confirm that one of the limitations on local authorities has been the absence of a choice of places, which has, in some cases, led them to send children to places that were quite unsuitable for them.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I welcome the report, and I am pleased that the Government are committed to doing so much to improve the lives of children who have often been neglected by previous Governments.
Will the Government consider implementing the Pigot report which will do so much to remove the stress that children feel when giving evidence in court, enabling them to give evidence outside court rather than face the terrible trauma of having to appear in person?

Mr. Dobson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work over the years on this issue. We are considering the Pigot report carefully, but, in view of the evidence, we may find ourselves in a dilemma. It is possible that the legitimate effort to try to protect child witnesses is reducing their credibility as witnesses or, if carried too far, could reduce their credibility as witnesses. That may be one of the explanations for the decline in the prosecution success rate in recent years.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement, just as I congratulate Sir William Utting, whom I know well, who has tremendous ability and professionalism, on the report that he has produced. General Sir David Ramsbotham, who was mentioned by the Secretary of State, also has tremendous ability and is doing a wonderful job.
When I was involved in a Select Committee that had responsibility in this area, we met many young people who were members of NAYPIC—the National Association of Young People in Care. They made it very clear to the Committee that places in residential homes were vital, yet the number of those places is now down to about 8,000. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that will be action, not only to sustain the current level of places, but to open a number of new residential homes? Such homes are ideal for many young people who have difficulty and who have been abused in their own homes.

Mr. Dobson: I will say that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that local authorities that have to take children into care and place them have places that are suitable for those children; and I certainly recognise that, for some children, that involves places in residential homes. The residential homes must be suitable, because—to return to my earlier point—some of the children are quite fearsome and difficult to deal with. Such children can be very threatening to children at the other end of the spectrum of vulnerability and to put the two groups together is an abuse by the system rather than of the system.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I speak as someone who, before coming to the House, spent 15 years as a child care social worker and the past eight years as a manager of residential and foster care. During that work, I managed and worked with many excellent residential social workers, who gave selflessly of their time and ability and all their experience to aid and assist children and young people in care. The same can be said of foster carers.
Some of the best times of my recent experience came from working in care groups with young people who—despite, in many cases, having the most atrocious background—can be articulate and strong and show a real commitment towards improving good practice in residential care and in ensuring the welfare of other young people in care.
I hope that the task force to consider the report, which needs to work across all departmental boundaries, will set children's rights at the heart of its work. I hope that it will give a statutory basis to the need to provide local in-care groups to involve young people in policy formulation at local level. I hope that it will set up a new national organisation for young people in care, because NAYPIC is sadly defunct. I hope that it will give real and fresh consideration to the idea of a children's rights commissioner to implement the United Nations convention on children's rights across the country
We need to change the culture of this country. We need to make this country child-centred. We cannot discuss the most vulnerable children in our society only when reports such as this come out. Children need to be at the forefront of our concern constantly. I hope that every hon. Member will contribute to that debate and I hope that many hon. Members will join the all-party group for children and young people in care, which I am aiming to set up—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have to call the hon. Gentleman to order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind hon. Members—especially new ones—that when a Secretary of State makes a statement, it is for Back Benchers to question that statement, not to make a speech or a statement on the statement. I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) gained a great deal of experience relating to this issue before coming to the House and it is a pleasure to hear him. I simply remind the House of these conventions. There is a great deal of unanimity, so I ask for brisk questions and I am sure that the Secretary of State will oblige in his responses.

Mr. Dawson: Madam Speaker, may I just ask two quick questions?

Madam Speaker: I have just looked up the hon. Gentleman's background and, because I am so soft and sentimental, I shall allow him a couple of quick questions, so that he can show the rest of us how it should be done.

Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend address the issue of pay in residential care and qualifications in residential care? That is the only way that the esteem, standing and competence of residential care will be increased, to the benefit of all children.

Mr. Dobson: I shall answer my hon. Friend's two final questions together. We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the staff of residential homes are good-quality staff who really care for the children. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the help that he has been giving to the Department. He went so far as to bring some of the children into the Department; some of those who are having to respond to the report have met some of them. That is a good step forward. My hon. Friend has been giving a great deal of help to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). We are involving some of those children in our response to the convention.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been tremendous success in the substantial fall in the number of children in care over the past couple of decades or


more? Sir William Utting, Sir Herbert Laming and many others have been committed to improving children's services. However, the children left in residential care are often the most troubled and troublesome, and the most complex and costly.
Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at the point that has been alluded to about the way in which children are shunted between special education, mental health services, social services for children and prison institutions? There is a danger that those difficult children will be passed from one agency to the next. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that progress has been made by the appointment of Norman Warner, who did so much to improve children's social services, as the special adviser to the Home Secretary. I believe that it is an encouraging step.
Will the right hon. Gentleman go into more detail about how he plans to see training improved? Too often, people have had work experience in residential settings in order to pursue their career in the community and elsewhere. Until we reverse the hierarchy of status and rewards, these children will not receive the continuity, care and supervision that they deserve.

Mr. Dobson: On the last point, we are looking at improving the general training of people involved in social services departments. We are concentrating attention on those involved in residential care, because, as I have said, that has not been the first priority for anyone in the system for quite a long time. I share the hon. Lady's view about the problem of young people, who may have been troublesome at some time, being passed from agency to agency. As a standing condemnation of all of us, not just those working in the child care system, it is a salutary thought that 22 per cent. of people in prison were formerly in care.

Ann Clwyd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the quick action that he has taken in response to the recommendations; if only that had been the case 20 years ago when the north Wales tribunal evidence first came to light. It was known to the authorities, but no action was taken. I remind my right hon. Friend that some of my constituents who were abused in those north Wales homes have given evidence to the tribunal. It has been a considerable ordeal for them, particularly as the perpetrators of some of the abuse against them are still at large.
Some names have been mentioned during the tribunal. They have not been made public, but they will be published at the end of the tribunal. May we have an assurance that, in all future investigations of this kind, when names are named, they will be investigated by the police and that prosecutions will be taken out against them if the evidence is there?

Mr. Dobson: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern, but I do not think that I can give a blanket guarantee that every inquiry will automatically release names. There may be circumstances in which it would be wrong to do so; it would depend on the circumstances. My general view is that there needs to be a cogent reason for not disclosing names, but there may occasionally be such a reason.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement. I am puzzled by the fact that there is to be one

for Scotland as well, but that there is no mention of Northern Ireland. We live in a kingdom where people move back and forward, and there are problems at each stage.
I support the general thrust of the report. Sir William Utting previously gave us a fine report recommending the setting up of a general social services council. No mention has been made of that. How far down the road are we towards that, or must we wait several more years before it comes into being?
On the subject of abuse, is it not important that, when people have been found guilty in a court of law of paedophilia, they should not be appointed to posts where they can continue to abuse children? When questions are asked, is it a sufficient answer that the person who made the reappointment took advice on it? Surely there should be greater protection for children who have been abused when in care.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We expect to publish the details of our proposals for a general social care council fairly early next year, and to proceed as quickly as possible to get that through.
On the appointment of people to posts when they have been found guilty of abuse, we have made changes in the law already. Clearly, some change in practice is also required.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: As I also worked in the child protection system for many years, may I welcome the report and my right hon. Friend's response to it?
With reference to the general social services council, is it not a fact that the social work profession pressed the previous Government over many years to bring in a proper regulatory framework? It is disgraceful that the previous Government did not act on that issue, when there was a consensus in the social work profession that it was a key element in protecting children and young people in care.
May I raise with my right hon. Friend a point that has not been mentioned so far? The league tables for school performance were published yesterday. Will he, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, examine the impact of the emphasis on school performance on youngsters who are in care? It is a simple fact of life that many head teachers are glad to see the back of youngsters in care because they affect the school's performance and position in league tables.
Bearing in mind the fact that, when children end up in care, it is a sign of some failure in the care system itself, will my right hon. Friend look at the preventive elements of the Children Act 1989 and consider how we can ensure that those elements work more effectively, to prevent youngsters from ending up in care?

Mr. Dobson: On my hon. Friend's last point, we are looking at what can be done. On school performance, again we are looking with the Department for Education and Employment at the impact of exclusions from school of children who may be extremely troublesome and disruptive, or may simply disrupt the exam tables. We need to examine that carefully.


There is clear evidence, particularly among younger children, that if they move from school to school, their education suffers desperately. Some of the children who are not getting a fair deal in a residential home are not getting anything like a fair deal at the various schools to which they are sent. We want to do something about that.
I do not want to go roaming over what has gone wrong in the past 20 years, but it is clear that, if we demand higher standards of performance from staff in social services departments, we should make it clear what we expect of them, and put in place a regulatory framework that enables them to do their jobs properly.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. He will be aware that the circumstances described in the Utting report will continue to be of great concern to people in Cambridgeshire, in the light of the Laverack case and similar circumstances associated with that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sense of impermanence in management in residential homes is a feature of the problem? Management is often short-lived, and staff move between residential homes, as do many of the residents on short-term placements.
Does the Secretary of State agree that part of the process of dealing with such movement and of raising the morale and status of residential social workers is to give support to managers and staff to take longer-term placements as part of a structure for their career? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree with me that, while there must be no compromise in the scrutiny of staff in residential homes for their appropriateness for the task, that should be positively presented as a process of giving the assurance that residential social workers are not the object of suspicion but are treated as professional staff in whom we can have greater confidence in future?

Mr. Dobson: As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, we live in a world that is full of dilemmas; one example is that we want to give encouragement to people who are doing a good job and extra encouragement to those who are doing an average job, but want to come down like a ton of bricks on those who are doing a bad job. There are always dilemmas.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the impermanence of staff and management. We want to ensure that staff stay far longer in the homes where they are working. Those of us who were fortunate to grow up in a home with our own parents had the exclusive commitment, love and support of just two people. That is what happens if we are really lucky. We are faced with children who have the exclusive love and support of no one. There is a turnover of people for whom they may have developed some affection and trust. We shall never be able to substitute for an ordinary, well-working family, but we should try much harder.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: As the third former social worker on the Government Benches to ask a question of my right hon. Friend, I shall be brief.
I welcome the report, but does my right hon. Friend agree with the section that highlights the need for better regulations for private fostering agencies? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of private fostering

agencies in north Kent that are primarily serving London boroughs that find it difficult to recruit fostering? Will he ensure that greater regulation is brought to bear on those agencies?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making. As I have said, it is clear that problems arise when children are away from the area in which they have grown up and from the local authority that is responsible for them. The further they are away from the direct responsibility of the local authority, the more that applies. That is not an attack on any agencies. However, the minute that there are boundaries between the local authority and the group of people who are responsible, more difficulties will inevitably arise.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: As a former chair of social services in a London borough, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and all its good intentions to protect children in care. I welcome especially the commitment to keep residential care going, and to provide adequate training and pay for the staff. Will the right hon. Gentleman, together with his Cabinet colleagues, ensure that this year's local government settlement will reflect his good intentions? Will he also ensure that local authority social services departments have enough money to carry them all out?

Mr. Dobson: We will do our best, but it is not all a matter of resources. It must be recognised that some well-run homes are cheaper to maintain than some homes that are badly run. Child abusers used to get paid; they were not doing it for free. We will provide whatever resources we believe to be necessary to provide a stable home life for these vulnerable children, in the way of buildings and properly qualified staff. It will, of course, take time to recruit the necessary staff and give them the training that is required.

Mrs. Joan Humble: As another former chair of social services I, too, welcome the report and the Government's response to it.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the common threads through many child abuse cases in recent years is that the young people did not know to whom they could complain, or were not believed when they complained. What action will he take to ensure that young people in care, especially now that so many of them are in foster homes and are isolated, know to whom they can turn if they have a concern, and ensure that their concerns will be taken seriously?

Mr. Dobson: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she requires. We want a system in which children can complain and, if they are telling, be believed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am bringing this to a close. No doubt we shall come back to this issue in a number of ways.

Points of Order

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard, as will the House, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say about an hour and a half ago that it is essential that the political neutrality and integrity of the civil service is maintained. I understand that your attention was drawn to an incident during the debate—the Liberal Democrat debate—on public services on Monday, when a note was passed from the box occupied by civil servants to a Government Back Bencher, who then used that material in the debate. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) drew attention to that at the time, and the occupant of the Chair took note of it, so I am sure that it has come to your attention.
Can you give us an assurance that that practice will be discontinued immediately, and that the person responsible will be identified? Can we be given some indication as to whether it was a civil servant or a political adviser?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order, because it gives me yet another opportunity to remind the House of the conventions that relate to the officials box. I made a full statement about this matter a year ago, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, but it is apparent that some Members and officials need to be reminded of the salient points. I am happy to take this opportunity to do so.
The officials box is intended for civil servants and political advisers with civil service status whose attendance is deemed essential by the Minister concerned. Their admittance into the box is by my permission, and their function is to provide information and briefing to Ministers as required.
The only Members who should be in communication with officials in the box are the Minister concerned, the Parliamentary Private Secretary or, in the latter's absence, another Member operating with the Minister's authority. Officials in the box should not provide information to any other Member, nor should Members engage in social discussion with officials in the box.
Those in the box are required to conduct themselves discreetly at all times, and should on no account show any partiality while they are present.
I regret to say that, in recent weeks, there have been instances of every one of these requirements being breached. I trust that there will be no recurrence.
As regards the particular incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, my investigations have revealed that there was indeed a breach of the conventions. The Minister concerned has expressed his regret to me, and I accept it.
I am drawing this statement to the attention of all parliamentary clerks and to the Cabinet Secretary. I do not want to see any recurrence at any time.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I always take responsibility for matters for which I am responsible. I was one of those Members who, when in opposition, used to draw attention to this rule frequently. The person who breached the rule on Monday was one of the my

political advisers. It was not his fault. I had failed to draw this rule to his attention. I apologise to the House. It will never happen again.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance—not for the first time—on two points.
First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to retract an incorrect statement about another hon. Member, even when his error has been drawn to his attention? Secondly, although I recognise—as, I think, does the House in general—that, since 1 May, the format of Prime Minister's Questions has been changed, I was not aware that it was in order for the Prime Minister to ask an hon. Member to answer a question during Prime Minister's Question Time. If it is in order, is it in order for me to answer that question now—or has the Prime Minister forgotten that he is Prime Minister, and does he mistakenly think that I am?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I can bring the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) up to date. I sat on those Opposition Benches for 18 years and asked all sorts of questions, some of which were difficult to answer. Sometimes, when a Minister was asked a difficult question, he would ask me one. I understand that, and the hon. Gentleman must understand it. In the real world, he must get used to the idea of being on the losing side. I have been inured to defeat for many, many years. I say to the hon. Gentleman: stop whingeing, stop whining and get on with the job.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I might respond to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), as he asked me a question. I shall deal first with the second part of his point of order. Of course, all Ministers are responsible for the decisions they make. They are the ones who should be responding to questions; they should not be asking them. The Executive are responsible to the House, and should be answering questions.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: May I finish my answer first?
In answer to the first point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, let me say that all Ministers—indeed, all Members of Parliament—are responsible for the comments they make. That has nothing whatever to do with me.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it deal with this matter?

Mr. Dobson: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Well, I am not going to allow a debate on the matter, but, if the right hon. Gentleman is raising another point of order, I must accept a point of order from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dobson: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) objected to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's saying that he had been


a special adviser to Mr. Jonathan Aitken. My right hon. Friend was relying on the current copy of Dod's guide to the new House of Commons, published in 1997, which states that clearly. If the hon. Gentleman objects, he should take the matter up with Dod's.

Madam Speaker: I shall draw a line under that. I call Mr. Dalyell.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a dreadful suspicion that I may be on the losing side, but let me try in any case. It is a matter of whether the House of Commons should have a say before important events take place, rather than being presented with a fait accompli.
You may recall, Madam Speaker, that you were kind enough to call me at Prime Minister's Question Time. I asked about Madeleine Albright and her visit to the Arab states. On 20 November, a vital meeting will take place between our Foreign Secretary and those of China, Russia, the United States and France. The issue may be military action or not military action.
Would it not be a matter for the House of Commons if the Foreign Secretary at least asked if he could make some kind of statement before attending the critical meeting in Geneva, which may affect what happens throughout the middle east? Should not the House have an opportunity to have a say before a decision is made?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is never on the losing side—as far as I am concerned, he is usually on the winning side. I remember granting his Standing Order No. 24 application for three minutes only a few days ago, when he was able to raise this issue—an issue about which I know he feels passionately. He has also made other submissions to me about it.
I was delighted to be able to call the hon. Gentleman today. He was one of the few hon. Members whom I had discretion to call at Prime Minister's Question Time, when he was also able to raise the issue. If the Minister wishes to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement about a meeting that he may attend tomorrow or on Friday, I will, of course, be in the Chair to hear it; but it is for the Minister to determine whether he wishes to make a statement.

Mr. Andrew George: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, to have to interrupt the proceedings of the House to raise a matter that is of great concern in my constituency—

Mr. Eric Forth: Is this a point of order?

Mr. George: Yes.

Madam Speaker: I must make it clear, because I want to be helpful to hon. Members, that a point of order does not have to be on a serious matter, but it must be a matter to which I, as Speaker of the House, can respond. I must have some responsibility.

Mr. George: My point relates to a missing fishing boat with four fishermen. I know that the House will be as concerned as I am about this matter. I seek a ministerial statement on this incident and on the searches that are being carried out to ensure that the boat is found.

Madam Speaker: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. He is asking me whether a Minister has given me notice that he wants to make a statement on that matter. The answer is that I have not been given notice of a. ministerial statement, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I hope that they will pass on his comments.

Lead in Paint (Health and Safety)

Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the manufacturers and retailers of paint stripping equipment and fluids to provide consumers with information about lead in paint manufactured before 1960; to require the Secretary of State to provide information to the general public about the dangers of lead in older paint; and to provide for the testing of children under the age of three years living in older housing to determine whether they are at risk from lead in older paintwork.
With all this talk of being on the winning or losing side, I trust that on this subject there will only be winners, and that hon. Members will all be on the same side. Many hon. Members are parents, and I am sure that many of us have done do-it-yourself: I do so reluctantly, and seldom have time for it. Very few members of the public are aware of the dangers of stripping older paintwork. I was not aware of them until I heard the BBC's "Face the Facts" programme.
Older paint is that used in houses in the pre-1950s, and certainly pre-1960s. High levels of lead were used in paint manufacture at that time, but have since been phased out. Such paintwork constitutes a serious hazard. We have known for some time the general hazards, which resulted in a reduction of lead in petrol some years ago.
The paintwork in up to 8 million homes that were painted in the first half of this century still contains significant amounts of lead. About 50 per cent. of the population live in older homes. The young are at particular risk, because they are more susceptible than adults to the effects of lead in their bloodstream. Pregnant women are also at risk, as are adults if they suffer lead poisoning.
A testing centre carried out random tests on 10 children and five adults over a month. Three of those children had lead poisoning, and were severely affected. Some of those tested were poisoned through exposure to paint. The adults had stripped paint using hot air strippers—I gather that blow torches are the worst possible thing to use—and the children had eaten small amounts of paint.
Low levels of lead in the population as a whole, and particularly in children, tend to skew abilities downwards, and have other side effects. People are exposed to risk in two ways: I was not aware of either of them until recently, and I am sure that many members of public have no idea about the risks either. Adults are exposed when they strip paint, and children are exposed when they eat very small flecks or specks of paint that are lying on the floor. Children may be playing on the floor with toys that pick up specks of paint. If they put those objects in their mouths, it may result in lead poisoning. A child of two or three years of age needs to put only a tiny speck in its mouth each day for about two months. Such a speck would fit on the head of a matchstick, but over time that is enough to cause serious lead poisoning.
There are also problems with milder forms of lead poisoning. Many people are not aware that the symptoms produced are exactly the same as those for all sorts of other problems that are caused by, for example, a virus. People could experience repeated and unexplained stomach ache, diarrhoea or sickness, which may show that there are rising levels of lead in the blood. The average

parent, and, I fear, the average doctor, would not necessarily worry, even if such symptoms were repeated, that a child was suffering from lead poisoning.
Children who have ingested 600 or 700 microgrammes of lead per litre of blood will develop encephalopathy, which is a serious medical condition. Before the poison accumulates to that level, there is damage to the bones, nerves, bladder, kidneys, heart and brain. Lead is a serious poison.
It is possible to treat the condition by removing the causes, but that can be done only if it is known that the person is acquiring the poison. The process by which that is done is called chelation, which is the medial extraction, the clawing back, of lead in the bloodstream. I am not a medical person, but I am assured that that process is time-consuming and difficult, not least because lead remains in the bone, and as the lead is removed from the blood of people with serious blood poisoning, the lead in the bones enters the bloodstream.
That means that permanent correction of the condition is difficult and expensive. It is only by repeated and expensive medical treatment, and if the condition is caught in time, that serious damage can be prevented.
A consultant at a London hospital estimates that about one child a week is being admitted to hospital with dangerously high levels of lead in the blood. There is a terrible human cost, because the health of those children will never be the same again. Some children have died from the condition. There are also serious health risks for adults. The condition relates to health and quality of life, but as matters are currently arranged, there is also a financial cost.
Some areas of the country are more affected than others. I do not want to over-dramatise the problem, because the paintwork in older homes is safe if it is left alone, if it is not chipped and if there are no children. However, if the paint is removed by the wrong technique, it is damaging to adults and children in the vicinity. Interestingly, professional decorators are advised to take elaborate precautions when removing older paint, but at the moment there is no mandatory requirement on do-it-yourself equipment manufacturers to print on hot-air and other paint-stripping equipment advice about how it should be used. Perhaps, under such circumstances, such tools ought not to be used at all.
It is ironical that leaflets currently supplied with DIY equipment in the United States are not available with the same equipment in this country, although the leaflets are printed here and placed in the packets that are to be sold in the United States.
In 1992, the United States passed the Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, which provides a national framework for dealing with the problem. Many states have their own programmes now—for example, for testing children's blood lead levels and for ensuring that people who sell homes are advised of any known high-lead paint work. Canada, Australia, France and other countries are also taking action.
As I have said, children are especially at risk-and children of all classes and backgrounds face the risk. One small speck a day can lead to serious poisoning. Parents need to know to be watchful. They need information. They and doctors need to think about the possibility of lead poisoning at low levels if there are persistent symptoms of a type consistent with lead poisoning.
No general leaflets are available. I hope that we can have a public information campaign that will help to raise general awareness, as well as specific information aimed at DIY enthusiasts, parents and general practitioners.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady is running out of time. Could she please bring her remarks to a conclusion?

Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Young children should be tested, initially through targeting and sampling. Most of all. I want to ensure that people are aware of the risks. Lead in paint need not be a major health hazard, if we act sensibly and make information available.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Melanie Johnson, Mr. Charles Clarke, Dr. Lynda Clark, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. John Healey, Ms Oona King, Mr. Tom Levitt, Mr. Chris Pond, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Ms Dan Taylor and Mr. Michael Wills.

LEAD IN PAINT (HEALTH AND SAFETY)

Miss Melanie Johnson accordingly presented a Bill to require the manufacturers and retailers of paint stripping equipment and fluids to provide consumers with information about lead in paint manufactured before 1960; to require the Secretary of State to provide information to the general public about the dangers of lead in older paint; and to provide for the testing of children under the age of three years living in older housing to determine whether they are at risk from lead in older paintwork: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 85].

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Ordered,

That the Bill be considered in the following order, Clause 1, Schedule, Clauses 2 to 13, new Clauses, new Schedules.— [Mr. Raynsford.]

Clause 1

REFERENDUM

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (1A) below,'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 1, line 7, leave out
'7th May 1998 or such later'
and insert 'such'.
No. 14, in page 1, line 8, after 'prescribe', insert
'(being a date not earlier than one month after the publication of the Government's bill for the establishment of that Authority)'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) The referendum shall not be held until a period of two months has elapsed after the publication of the Government's proposals, save that the details of the electoral arrangements may be published at a later date.'.

Mr. Hughes: I shall also speak to amendment No. 4. The other two amendments have been tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench.
Two issues to do with the Bill's preparation and the timetable are matters of procedure. There is nothing novel about them—Ministers have heard me make the point before—but we Liberal Democrats think that they are of constitutional and practical importance.
It is important that the House gets its procedures in the right order. I understand that the Government, having only recently come to office, are trying to get this part of the constitution agenda through as quickly as possible—which I welcome—but they are not proceeding in a logical order. They put out a Green Paper, set a target date for the conclusion of the consultation period—the end of October—and collected in the conclusions. I had hoped that the Minister would beaver a little harder. I asked him to supply me with a list of all the responses and publications by today so that we would know what was involved. The answer was that they would be ready by 1 December. That is not the most useful date, as it does not enable us to have the material for today's debate. I regret that.
Not long ago, the Minister said that there were more than 1,000 responses. As I have told him, that is not very many. During the general election campaign I surveyed my constituents and received 6,000 responses. I do not think that people in Southwark, North and Bermondsey, although very good at communicating, are unrepresentative.
Following the conclusion of the consultation period, we should have had the Government's response so that we would have knowledge of the White Paper and the proposals—not a Green Paper, in draft. If we are legislating to put on to the statute book a provision for a referendum—either on a specific date, 7 May, or another date—we need to know on what the people will be asked to vote. Ministers may say, "They will vote on this question or that question," but we know that people will vote on what is behind the questions—for example, what does an assembly mean, what does an authority mean, what does a mayor mean and what will they do?
Ministers should not take the House for granted—it is not a matter in which the public are generally interested—and say, "We want a blank cheque. We want the power to hold a referendum before we know what we are asking people to vote on." The same point was made about the Welsh and Scottish legislation. I made an offer to the Government, and I do not understand why they did not accept it. I said that, if they published the responses to the consultation in November and then produced, even at the beginning of February, a White Paper, we would co-operate in getting a short Bill through this House and the other place in a matter of weeks. After all, as Ministers have said, the Bill deals with a limited number of points. It should have been done in that order and I regret the fact that we are now being asked to give the Government a blank cheque on the referendum.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Is he not being a little tender with the Minister, for reasons that I cannot begin to imagine? Only today during Question Time we had lectures from the Government about open government, transparency and sharing with the people. During the modernisation debates we have heard about pre-legislative openness and the Government's desire to consult openly before legislation is introduced. Is not the Minister's behaviour quite extraordinary in the light of what his colleagues have been telling us just this afternoon about open government and the cracklings that we have heard about modernisation?

Mr. Hughes: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the band of London Members, following his move from somewhere further north and west. One can exaggerate matters, and I think that he has exaggerated a little. I should be happy to be firmer, harsher or angrier with Ministers—

Mr. Forth: Less tender.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed, I am happy to be less tender with Ministers when the need arises, but I also believe that debates in Committee, albeit a Committee of the whole House, should be about trying to win the argument. I am hopeful, although with little reason to be so, that the Minister may respond positively and accept some amendments. That is the test.
This is the Bill's Committee stage. In good Committees, the Government will say, "Yes, that's a good idea; we agree with you." Next week, at the end of the Bill's consideration in Committee, if Ministers say, "No, we can't possibly do that or that, and that's a bad idea," they will be showing not only a lack of generosity of mind and spirit but a lack of willingness to reach the most agreeable solution. I shall be extremely disappointed, as will voters, if the Government produce a consultative Green Paper and then a White Paper and a Bill that they will not consider amending.
If Ministers hear good arguments, I hope that they will put away the briefs from civil servants in the Box—who, it has been confirmed, can communicate only with Ministers and their parliamentary private secretaries—and accept them.
The Bill deals with a matter that is both constitutional and practical. Amendment No. 4 suggests that the referendum should not be held until two months after the Government have published their proposals. Our stance is different from that of the Conservatives, who propose that, if necessary, the date could be moved from 7 May 1998. We do not argue about the date; we are quite happy that the referendum should be held on 7 May 1998, which is the logical time to hold it, because we do not want to delay London's annual voting cycle.
Even if Ministers do not accept our first argument—that, constitutionally, the order of events is the wrong way round—I hope that they will say that at least two months will elapse before firm proposals are made. As Ministers will see in our amendments, the only matter that Liberal Democrats believe should be reserved and not placed on the table is the nature of the electoral system. If we are to have an electoral system that commands widespread support, we may have to put our heads together on that matter—as was done in Scotland, where agreement was reached.
The objective is to establish a Londonwide government that will have permanent security and not be a Greater London council mark II, established by a Labour Government and thrown out by a different Government. On the previous occasion, paradoxically, the GLC was abolished by a later version of the same party. The Inner London education authority also was abolished by the Tories.

Mr. Forth: We were flexible and modernising.

Mr. Hughes: They were flexible in some things, but inflexible when someone with a view they did not like took power, especially if they were across the river from here.
If there is to be a proper and informed vote in the referendum, people will have to read, consider and debate the proposals. That process cannot occur overnight or in a week. We think that, at the absolute minimum, two months will be required between publication of a White Paper and the vote. If we are not to move the date from 7 May, we must have the White Paper by the beginning of March. I cannot imagine why it should not be possible to have the White Paper by then. The experience of the Welsh referendum shows that, if time is not provided, we could be asking for trouble.

Mr. Eric Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would not want to


get in the way of his making a cosy deal on proportional representation with his friends in the Labour party. He suggests that we are dealing with practical rather than constitutional matters. The use of referendums is quite unusual under our constitutional system. If we are about to set a pattern, we should not use a referendum as a blank cheque. If we are to consult the people, the people have a right to know what they are being consulted on before they vote.

Mr. Hughes: By definition, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's politics, but I agree with the point he has made, which is important. This is a constitutional innovation for the mainland of the United Kingdom. We have had only one United Kingdomwide referendum—that on Europe. Paradoxically and a bit nonsensically, it was held after we had gone in. It should have been held before we went in. There have been referendums in Northern Ireland and, of course, the two recent referendums in Scotland and in Wales.
Regional government in England, which my colleagues and I strongly support, appears to be extremely popular in London and less popular elsewhere, although there is a strong view about it in the part of the world from which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) originally comes. We ought to ask people for their opinions. Even if opinion polls in London say that 80 per cent. of people want a democratically elected Londonwide authority, we should test that finding. As regular referendums on constitutional issues are a constitutional novelty, we must be absolutely sure that people know what they are being asked to decide.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative party's establishing the Greater London council and then seeking to abolish it is nothing new? The London county council was created by Lord Salisbury, who then tried to abolish it 10 years later, making a speech in another place in which he claimed, although it was run by the dear old Liberals at the time, that there was no experiment so revolutionary or socialistic that it was not being practised at county hall. It seems to me that nothing changes.

Mr. Hughes: To be completely honest, I did not know that Lord Salisbury tried to abolish the LCC 10 years after it was established, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. It strikes me that many of the best ideas are painted as socialistic and revolutionary. I am proud to represent Bermondsey.
In the 1920s, when Bermondsey was run by a Labour council—the old Bermondsey borough—it had revolutionary and socialistic ideas such as public baths and slipper baths which were free to the public. The Daily Mail and other newspapers of the day said that it was a disgrace and a waste of taxpayers' money. There was a solarium to try to deal with tuberculosis, which was regarded as a scandalous abuse of public finances. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that perfectly reasonable and sensible ideas are often presented as loony by certain organs of the press, although later they become the majority view and are hugely appreciated.
I campaigned in the Welsh referendum. As my name suggests, I have more than a little Welsh blood and I am very proud of that. Those of us who supported the yes

campaign nearly lost the referendum, partly because there had been no agreement on the core elements of the proposals. There was no agreement, for example, that Cardiff was the only and obvious place for the Assembly always to meet.
I was campaigning in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). People said that the Assembly would always be in south Wales. My family comes from Snowdonia, in north-west Wales. A local farmer there told me, "It would do no good for us." There was no agreement about it. There was no agreement about the cost and whether it was money well spent. Nor was there agreement on whether the quango issue would be addressed properly.
Above all, people felt that they had been given the proposal so recently that they had not had a chance to test it. That is no good; when it happens, many people do not vote. If the proposals are produced late, people either do not vote or get the sense that the Government are pushing things through.
One of our concerns about the new Administration, whose constitutional agenda we generally welcome, is the danger of their being too authoritarian. I do not say that because I do not accept what the Minister says about the consultation paper being honest. As I have said to him publicly and privately, I accept his and his colleagues' good faith. I want to ensure that we get the best form of Londonwide government. It is in all our interests—the Minister's electors, my electors and the electors of Members representing London constituencies and beyond.
I hope that we will not try to bounce the electorate into anything. In later debates, we shall discuss the question and the form of the assembly. Amendment No. 2 is about not bouncing people by giving them information too late. My hon. Friends and I hope that the Government will accept that, at least as a minimum, there is a clear two-month space between publication of the proposals and the referendum, which we on these Benches hope will be on 7 May.

5 pm

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 13 and 14. As they take a very different form from amendment No. 2, we request that you, Sir Alan, exercise your discretion at the end of the debate to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 14.
For once, the Conservative party agrees with the Labour party—not on the many things on which the Labour party has changed its mind in recent weeks, but on the need for reform of London government. It is one of the Conservative party's proudest achievements in 18 successful years of power that we put in place the right conditions to enable all 7 million Londoners to turn their city into the greatest capital city on earth.
The Committee will know that London is one of the world's leading financial centres. We have an economy the size of Russia or Saudi Arabia. London is home to more of Europe's largest companies than any other European Union city. It is the leading site for foreign exchange dealing, international bank lending and equity trading. It has more foreign banks than any other city and more United States banks than New York city. Many right hon. and hon. Members present will be aware of the expertise, skill and mastery the City displays on a daily basis. From the stock exchange to the London


international financial futures exchange to Lloyd's, we have a watertight case to call London the world centre of financial excellence.
London is also the world's centre of artistic excellence. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday:
London's leisure industries are at the heart of what makes it a world-class city. They make a major contribution to the economy of London and to the quality of life of Londoners as well as the millions of visitors.
Our universities are world class, from King's college and the London School of Economics to University college and Imperial college. All have global reputations as centres of academic excellence.
The Conservatives believe that the time is right to modernise and reform our capital city's system of government. The time is right to ensure that London's government is reshaped and ready for the challenges of the 21st century. We want to build on the tremendous success and prosperity in our city which flourished during our time in government, and make the best even better.
The Bill will give each and every one of London's 5 million voters the chance to vote in six months' time in a referendum on the Government's plans for their Greater London authority. I welcome the Government's generosity in sharing their less than detailed deliberations on the proposals—the 65 questions—with us, the House and the people of London in the Green Paper "New Leadership for London". I welcome the fact that the Government have given us all a taste of what may be to come.
Despite the intimation that a White Paper will be published in the spring, we on the Conservative Benches would rather have welcomed the publication of a Bill setting out solid, detailed proposals well before the referendum in May, before London goes to the polls, before its voters are asked to give their opinion on what may or may not happen to their city's government in the next millennium. So, too, would the people of London—my constituents in particular.
The Greater London authority proposal comes in two parts. It is a Siamese twin of a proposal with a directly elected mayor moulded to a directly elected assembly. The package is to be offered hand in hand to Londoners, linked as inextricably as cheese and wine or, if the subject is not too sensitive for the Labour party, as Benson and Hedges.
We shall explain later our widely supported objection to grouping those two substantial and significant proposals in a single, 24-word question, putting them to the electorate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is unsatisfactory. Asking Londoners to make their decision about reform before the Government have put the meat on the bones of their policy is equally unsatisfactory. They will be asked before there are any serious, detailed proposals on the table and before they know what the planned changes will mean for them.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that more concerns emerged on Second Reading? The Government say that they want a mayor for London with power and strength, but during the debate the Minister said that they also want a London authority that will shackle him and tie him down. That tiny glimpse is one reason Londoners need to understand the details.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. One of the interesting features of the Second Reading debate is that more speeches were made against the detail of the proposals than for them. That is why we should have the last word in detail before Londoners go to the referendum.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): What was the Second Reading majority?

Mr. Ottaway: Why are the Government asking Londoners to decide on something that the Government have not been able to decide on? Why are they asking the views of Londoners when they have only a hazy view themselves? Why are they putting the option of reform to Londoners when they do not know the details themselves? So far, the details are wrapped up in a 61-question consultation document.
The Government are saying, "We want you to say yes, but we do not quite know what the question is. We want you to say yes, but we do not yet know what we want you to say yes to." It sounds like the new Labour version of "Blind Date": "My girl friend has agreed to marry me, but I do not know who she is yet. All the Government say I should do is cross my fingers and hope for the best." Londoners are being asked to express their views before the Bill setting up the Greater London authority has been published. They will have to make up their minds before the Bill has been debated and examined in this place or anywhere else around the capital.
Once upon a time, the Labour party contended that pre-legislative referendums, such as that proposed for London, were the wrong way to proceed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) reminded the House last week that the Secretary of State for Wales once said that the trouble with pre-legislative referendums was that there were so many questions that could not be answered. He was right, and boyo he should know.
Without the legislation having passed through its parliamentary stages, no one can know exactly what the Government have in store for London. No one can know what plans they have for the capital's future. No one can know what the Government are up to. How can the public know what they are supposed to be deciding on? How can people be sure that the details of the Government's proposals are right for them and for London? How can they be sure that they are not being deceived? The position is very unsatisfactory. It reflects poorly on a Government that came to office on a platform of openness and freedom of information and on their confidence in Londoners to take decisions for themselves. Above all, it reflects poorly on the Government's idea of what they think democracy for London is all about.
Within 200 days, the public will be asked what they think of the idea of a directly elected mayor and assembly.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Things are not even as clear as that—the schedule refers only to an elected mayor, which is why we have tabled an amendment. This is the most fraudulent blank cheque proposed in recent times by any legislature for municipal politics.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill refers to a
Greater London authority, made up of an elected mayor",
who could be elected by the assembly. It is all very vague, and we hope to put it right later on.
How can the public know what they are supposed to be deciding? How can they be sure that the details of the Government's proposals will be right for them and for London? It is all a poor reflection on a Government who came to office on a platform of openness and freedom of information.
Within 200 days, the public are going to be asked what they think of the idea of a directly elected mayor and assembly, yet they will have little idea of what powers either will have, once those powers are laid down by Parliament—the only body that can decide on them. With the referendum only a few months away, we have still not even seen the White Paper.
On Second Reading, the Minister gave a commitment to publish one in the spring. The Oxford Dictionary says that spring is from 20 March to 21 June: I hope that today the Minister will be a little more precise. At the moment we have only a Green Paper containing a few principles and a series of questions, each one of which is linked to others. How can anyone be expected to form a view on a set of principles? However undemocratic and extraordinary that may seem to us and to voters across the city, that is exactly what the Government are asking Londoners to do.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that he had received some 1,200 responses in the Department during the consultation period that ended last month—hardly a ringing endorsement of the proposals, hardly a mandate from the people of London with which to launch such a major reform. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that his constituency alone had produced 6,000 responses. My party has received many more—

Mr. Raynsford: Tremendous.

Mr. Ottaway: Well, if we can get more than 6,000, I should have thought the Minister can, too.
What details does the Green Paper give away? The Greater London authority will be inclusive, small, effective, influential, audible, strategic, democratic, efficient and consensual. That sounds to me suspiciously like the noble aims that led to the old GLC. What Londoners want to know and have the right to know is the devil in the detail. The Government are asking them to say yes in a referendum based on principle alone.
A range of issues need to be faced up to in clear and precise terms, but the legislation will not be available by the date of the referendum to tell us what those details are. The Committee deserves better; so do the people of London; so does everyone with an interest in London's future, from the City to the boroughs to the man on the Clapham omnibus.
The Government have given away no details of the timetable for the advice that they want on the electoral arrangements for Greater London—matters covered by clause 8. It is all very well saying that the Secretary of State has powers to set a timetable to require the Local Government Commission for England to provide its report

on the arrangements, but there is no mention of the precise timetable that the Secretary of State intends to follow. Why not? When does the Secretary of State intend to act? When does the Minister expect the final report to be issued? What about the interim report? The Bill does not say, the Minister does not say, and nobody knows the answer.
Does not the Minister think that Londoners should know about something so important now? Who has a vote—and where—is fundamental to the shape, the impact and the consequences that the Government's reforms will have. Nor will the Government let on anything about the method of election that will be used to elect the assembly. Will the details be in the White Paper? If we do not have the electoral report there could be some difficulty here. The Government have not said whether there will be multi-seat constituencies, single-seat constituencies or even a single Londonwide constituency. The only way to resolve these matters is to publish the Bill before the referendum.
Why is the Minister asking Londoners to express a view before he does?
5.15 pm
Then there is the cost of the proposals. The Government will not say how the GLA will be paid for. Will the detail be in the White Paper? Will there be a levy on the borough councils, or directly on council tax payers; or will fares rise for those who use London's transport system; or will the money come from the uniform business rate? The Minister has not told us because he does not yet know himself.
Then there is the question of elected representatives and the bodies that will report to the GLA. Elected members will be in the majority in the myriad new organisations that will come from it. Will the details of this be in the White Paper or the Bill? What local knowledge and expertise will these representatives be expected to have? Will they simply be the choice of their respective parties? Will they be accountable directly to Londoners or just to the assembly? The Minister has not told us because he does not know yet.
Conservative Members believe that referendums should be held once the electorate have been given the full facts about a proposal, putting them in the best possible position to judge its merits or lack of them—

Mr. Raynsford: Exactly what we are proposing.

Mr. Ottaway: I therefore look forward to publication of the Bill and the Minister's acceptance of our amendment. He seems to think that a White Paper can be as detailed as a Bill: it cannot be. That is why we want a separate vote on our amendments. The electorate must be aware of the pros and cons and aware that Parliament has done its job of scrutinising the legislation. Good intentions are not enough: good intentions can change. Good intentions do not necessarily make good law. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, look at what happened in the Welsh referendum. The relevant legislation might be amended by Parliament when the House eventually has the chance to consider it.
Some minutes ago the Minister, from a sedentary position, urged me to remember the size of the Government's majority on Second Reading, thereby


displaying a degree of arrogance that shows he is not listening to the voters. May I take it that he is not prepared to accept a perfectly good amendment? Is he saying that the White Paper will be the last word? Of course he cannot say that, because the House may quite possibly amend a proposal that appears in the White Paper as the legislation goes through.
Holding a referendum on a loose set of flimsy principles is like asking the people of London to sign a blank cheque. Not even the Minister, I dare say, would consider that sensible—yet it is what he is doing. The Government's approach is profoundly undemocratic. While it is right to consult the electorate on changes of such importance, the fact remains that that should be done when, and only when, all the questions have been answered inside and outside the House; when all the details are known; when the House has discussed the proposals and decided their final form; when the final blueprint is before the people of London.
The Government are saying, "Give me a yes and trust me to sort out the details later." That is precisely what the recently elected Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) did when he was leader of Croydon council. I wrote to him asking what the proposed GLA would take away from Croydon council. He wrote back to me in September last year, as the then leader of the council, about his party's plans for a strategic authority:
Local councils will not be losing powers to this new body".
He trusted his own party when it was in opposition—and now look what has happened: a year later, the Labour party's Green Paper on London government describes 14 diminutions of the boroughs' powers.
It sounds rather like a U-turn to me. That does not give me much faith in the Government's ability to stick to a policy and it cannot give the hon. Gentleman much faith in his party's ability to stick to a policy, but then he does not need me to tell him that.
Trust the Government. The electorate will wonder whether to trust them as they did on tuition fees. They will wonder whether they should trust them as they did on tobacco advertising. That is not much of a record to endear the Government's decision-making abilities and political judgments to London's 5 million voters.
I want to know as much as possible about the reforms. I have set out a series of unanswered questions that are likely to remain unanswered before polling day. When will the Government realise that it is not just my hon. Friends and I who want to know, but London's 5 million voters, 32 boroughs, many councillors and the Corporation of London? Other London Members of Parliament and those whose constituencies fall outside the London boundary but whose areas will be covered by bodies under GLA control, such as the proposed police authority, want to know, as do the 10 Members of the European Parliament and the Government office for London. Each and every one deserves to know precisely how the Government's reforms will affect them and how the creation of a London development agency will affect them, politically, financially and strategically.
When will the Government wake up to the fact that their failure to disclose detailed information on reforms before polling day is not something they can so readily ignore in the democratic society I thought we lived in. How can the Government so easily refuse to make available such vital and necessary information when what

they are proposing has such fundamental repercussions for all concerned about London? Why do they have so little regard for democracy in our capital city?
Throughout debates on the Bill, I have been astonished by the Government's lack of confidence in their proposals. Not only do they want to push through the plan for a directly elected assembly, lumped in with a directly elected mayor, but they will not surrender the detail of their reforms. The Bill should be about choice. With the Government's proposals as they stand today, the Bill denies choice. It denies us all, inside and outside the House, the detail that we should have before voting on the Government's reforms for London. Londoners are to be asked to give unconditional support for the Government's reforms. They ask all of us who live in London to sign that blank cheque and forget about what could happen as a result.
Londoners must decide whether they want regional government or a strengthened borough council system which, without a shadow of a doubt, remains wedded to the capital's electorate. Where the Government simply want to change, to create more politicians and more bureaucrats, the Conservative party believes in power at the lowest level. I much regret that the Government will not give more information, as they should. As matters stand, the people of London will not have until after the referendum the details of those far-reaching proposals which, if implemented, will mean considerable changes in the government of their city.
London's 5 million voters deserve better. This is too important a matter for Conservative Members to fight for anything less. Those who live in the world's greatest capital city have the right to know about the devil in the detail before the referendum on 7 May. I urge the Committee to accept amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

The Chairman: In the spirit of answering questions, I hope that it will assist the Committee's consideration of this group of amendments if I say that I am ready to accept a separate Division on amendment No. 14.

Mr. Forth: I must confess at the outset that I have not yet quite reached the state of persuasion of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that reform of the way in which London is governed is necessary. The clue to my reservations came in my hon. Friend's remarks, in which he rightly praised the extent of London's success, expressed in so many different ways. Whether we consider its success in commercial or cultural terms, the happy thought that we can all share is that London has been a phenomenal success, not least in the past 10 years. That must surely lead one to consider how that has come about without this much-vaunted additional level of bureaucracy that we are now discussing.
I say that simply to put in context my few remarks on the amendment. However, I am sure that, in due time, I may come to be persuaded that those extra levels of bureaucracy will somehow benefit Londoners in a way that is not yet clear to me—or, I suspect, to the majority of Londoners.
The Minister said that he had had 1,200 responses to the Green Paper. Out of 7 million people, that is not an overwhelming endorsement of the Green Paper. If I share with the Committee the information that one of those responses was from me, and it was not a glowing support


for the Government's proposals, that will cast some doubt on the Government's proposals. When the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) not unreasonably asked for a bit of detail, nothing was forthcoming. When he gets that list, I hope that he will find my name on it; then perhaps he can ask me what I said to the Minister.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman may not have seen my question on the Order Paper asking Ministers whether they would publish the list, and place it in the Library, by 17 November. I did that expressly so that we would have that information, including the right hon. Gentleman's submission. We shall get that information by 1 December and we shall be able to see the evidence in the Department, but that will not be much good to the Committee. I see no good reason—the right hon. Gentleman will agree—why we could not have that in good time, even in summary form and even if we had to go across the road to look at it.

Mr. Forth: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Committee would not want me tediously to repeat what I said earlier when I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's excellent—if I may say so—speech.
I want to query the nature of the referendum process itself. I must confess—I am obviously in one of my mildly heretical moods this evening—that I am not yet desperately impressed by referendums as a means of political decision making. The Bill is a good example of why not. All here well understand that the nature of the questions asked very much determines the likely answer, and timing is crucial. The popularity of the Government or whomever is asking the question will colour the answer.
Given all that, it is obvious that, if I wanted—it is doubtful, but let us say I did—to vote for an assembly, and, following the questioning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, we were able to wring out the detail in time, and if that assembly were to be based on some form of proportional representation, which would no doubt be favoured by the Liberal Democrats, I would be in a dilemma. I would want to say yes to the assembly but, if I did not want an assembly based on proportional representation, how should I vote? Or, to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), supposing I wanted a powerful mayor, unshackled by some superficial or superfluous assembly, how should I vote? I am being given no option.
The referendum, which is being offered as some great consultation process, is nothing of the kind; it is a question formulated to get the answer required by those posing the question—the Government of the day. It is no more and no less than that. Therefore, before we endorse the referendum process in essence, principle and substance, we should be sure that we understand what the Government seek to do and how they intend to go about it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case for a referendum in respect of Scotland and Wales rests on the fact that the House proposes to cede substantial powers elsewhere in the United Kingdom? The House has no powers to cede on

behalf of Greater London. Is not this something of a cop-out by the Government, who, because they cannot make a decision themselves, want to put it to the people?

Mr. Forth: I am tempted to agree with my hon. Friend but I am prevented from doing so because I believe that the referendum process in Scotland and Wales was flawed in that important regard. When were the people of England ever asked what they thought about all this? After all, it is the people of England who are ceding political power and are paying for most of the process, yet they were never asked. What price a referendum in those circumstances? I concede that the same argument does not entirely apply to London.

Mr. Pickles: May I correct my hon. Friend? Part of the Metropolitan police area lies outside London, so the changes in respect of the Metropolitan police will affect my constituency in Essex. My constituents will not have a vote either.

Mr. Forth: I think that I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am tempted to digress on one of my favourite hobby horses, which would be the definition of London, but I shall not, Sir Alan—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman anticipates me. If he looks at the selection list, he will see that I have tried to ensure that there can be discrete debates on a variety of subjects. I appreciate that there is some interlinking of argument, but it will assist the Committee if hon. Members try as hard as possible to stay within the bounds of the amendment, which is concerned with the date of the referendum and not with the content of the questions or any other matter.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that guidance, Sir Alan, and I am sure that, even in their enthusiasm, my hon. Friends will not tempt me to digress any further than my natural inclinations would allow.
Those were my preliminary remarks; I now begin the substance of my speech. I want to agree both with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, because their remarks were key to the point at issue.
Let us suppose that we are going to have a referendum and that people are going to be asked to vote on those matters. It is not only not unreasonable but absolutely essential that people in their maturity are given the opportunity to study the proposals carefully and to discuss them and consult among themselves to determine what they think before being asked to vote.
The central question is whether the Government are prepared—or even able—to give us sufficient information in the form of a White Paper, a Bill or any other supporting document so that people can come to a mature judgment. That information must cover all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and possibly even more. It must cover the nature of the proposed assembly and answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley by covering in some detail the nature of the proposed relationship


between the assembly and the mayor. Otherwise, we as voters will be unable to make a sensible judgment or vote in the referendum.

Sir Paul Beresford: The matter goes further than that, because some of the responses from some of the elected London borough councils have consisted of a list of questions. They want to know what powers are to be taken away, what the financing will be like and whether they are being top-sliced. Initial indications from the standard spending assessments are that money is being moved out of London, but councils want to know whether more money will be taken from them along with their powers.

Mr. Forth: The Minister was not listening to my hon. Friend's valuable intervention, and he is not listening now. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will feel the need to ask his questions again and that he will succeed in catching the Minister's attention. Unless we get answers to those questions at the end of this part of the debate, we shall not know how we are going to vote on this issue or on others.
I thought that that was what we were here for—to discuss the matter and to elicit answers from the Minister. The Minister's failure to listen will make answering difficult, although all the evidence gathered today in this Parliament is that Ministers do not listen to what is being said here and, if they do, they still do not give us any answers. Perhaps new ground will be broken tonight, which will be an exciting moment for Parliament, but I shall not hold my breath.
Nevertheless, we must ensure as best we can that detailed answers to our questions are forthcoming now, so that we can make up our minds on the amendments. Subsequently, the Minister must give an absolute guarantee that sufficient detailed information of the sort requested by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South and for Mole Valley and answers to their questions will be available in time for voters to give proper and mature consideration before being asked to vote in the referendum next May. Unless those answers are forthcoming, the Minister can draw his own conclusions about what we shall all be forced to do.

Mr. Alan Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has quite rightly emphasised that the devil is in the detail. I realise that the Minister probably has some arguments in reserve that he will deploy when winding up. He will probably cite the lack of time, the fact that some of the details have to be settled with reference to other parties and the need for consultation—all the usual flannel with which his officials will brief him.
However, one question relates directly to the date: it is absolutely fundamental and, unless it is answered, all our discussions are almost valueless because they are taking place in a vacuum. That question is: what is the cost of what is being proposed? It is totally unjust for the people of this city to be invited to vote on a matter, of which they may or may not approve in principle, without their decision being related to what it will cost them.
The scheme has been talked up with descriptions of what powers will be given to the mayor and what benefits will accrue from having a mayor and assembly, but at the back of all that hype is colossal expenditure. My hon.

Friend the Member for Croydon, South listed various sources from which revenue might be derived, but even if every single one were milked for revenue, there would still not be enough at the disposal of the new bodies to meet the grandiose claims made for them.
It is said that they will deal with traffic congestion, get rid of pollution and impose a green regime across the inner city and there are many other wild ideas—often touted by the Evening Standard, which has behaved in an extraordinarily irresponsible manner in respect of this whole topic from start to finish. If there is to be any realism in the fulfilment of those pledges, a colossal sum of money will be involved. That sum has to be drawn from somewhere and it will be drawn from the people of London. We all understand the Chancellor's pledge that the overall level of taxation will not be raised, and we know that we can trust his word. Therefore, the money will have to be raised locally.
There will probably be some hypothecation—at least, we hope there will. Will there? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question—it would be original and inventive of him to do so. If Londoners are to be asked to contribute an enormous sum of money—which they will be, through various indirect taxes and a huge loading on their council tax—it would be useful for them to see in advance some indication of how that would be hypothecated.
Such things can easily be calculated, at least in general terms, and it would be possible to put them in good time—even sticking to the existing date—so that those who are to vote in the referendum can carry such considerations in the forefront of their mind. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that he is going to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Pickles: I imagine that the Minister must now be feeling a little embarrassed, having told us on Second Reading that he had received 1,200 responses. I put out a regular newsletter to my constituents—33,000 households. I do not get 1,200 responses back, but I get a number of responses that approaches 1,000. A figure so low is a sign that one should consult the people about one's proposals—the people are waiting to read the proposals before making a significant contribution.
I have noticed the Minister nodding while my hon. Friends raised their points, as if to say, "Yes, I have the answer to that," "We know what we are going to do there," and "Don't worry, everything will be sorted out." If that is the case, what is the Minister scared of? Why does he not produce the Bill or his White Paper? Let us have the information so that the debate can be properly worked out.
Referendums are not usual in our constitutional system. We have had a series of them, but they might best be described as a means of getting the Government off the hook. Generally speaking, with the exception of the two referendums in Scotland and Wales, they have been held against a background of a known position. Previously, the only referendums we had experienced had been on small local issues such as whether or not the pubs should open in Wales.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On the issue of the referendums on Scotland and Wales—serious matters for the kingdom—does my hon. Friend accept that the no White Paper has yet been forthcoming on the detail? As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)


rightly said, the devil is in the detail. What guarantee is there that the Government will produce serious detail about their proposals in time for a referendum on the date that is now proposed?

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing in the Bill would force the Government to do anything. They need not do a single thing from the time that the Bill becomes an Act until the time of the referendum. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important that, before we make such important decisions, the full facts must be known. After all, we shall be faced with a question at the referendum where it will be possible, no matter what one's view are and unless one is violently opposed to both a mayor and an assembly, to vote yes.
This may be the first of many referendums, so it is important to get the ground rules right. Before the people are asked to express a view in the referendum, we must ensure that the consultation is real and complete. We know that, at this referendum, substantial parts of the Metropolitan police area will be disenfranchised. Therefore, even if the full facts are known, some of the people who will be affected by policing decisions will not have an opportunity to vote.
The Government have a duty to explain. If they intend to use referendums as a constitutional device—if they are to become a regular feature—they should not be used as a cynical and sinister way of trying to increase the number of people who vote in local government elections. The Government should explain to the people exactly what they are being asked to endorse.
If we are to move forward in a process of "trust the people", those people have a right to complete disclosure. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, the devil is in the detail. The Minister's position is now like that of the red queen in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". The Government are saying, "Never mind about the evidence or what the people think, let us have a judgment now." The only answer given by Labour Members is to say that they had a large majority on Second Reading.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend as astonished as me to see so many Conservative Members present, anxious to debate these matters, while the Government Benches are virtually empty? Labour Members are not prepared to ask their Government for details about the financial consequences of the Bill. The Government are relying on the Lobby fodder who voted for the Bill on Second Reading. They have now been told to go home and not trouble this Committee.

Mr. Pickles: That is an important point, which I was about to mention. We are in danger of treating the citizens of London like Labour Members of Parliament. The view seems to be, "We do not care what they think or what they do as long as they turn up." The public should receive more respect from the Chamber than the Government Chief Whip offers to his Back Benchers.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: A Labour Member. How nice to see him.

Mr. Corbyn: I could not help but hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the alleged lack of Labour

Members in the Chamber. Can he explain why, on a matter as important as world climate change, only two Tory Members were present this morning? They had nothing to say about pollution in London or anywhere else and most Conservative Members stayed away. It may be that they had businesses to go to—I do not know. The world should be told.

Mr. Pickles: I think that the—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be led down that route. I should remind him that the amendments are tightly drawn. Some of the issues that he is covering now will be dealt with in later amendments.

Mr. Pickles: Of course, Mr. Lord. My only response to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to say that we saw how he voted on Second Reading.
Before people reach a decision they have a right to full disclosure. They need to know what the mayor will do and what powers he will have. They need to know whether an elected assembly will take powers away from the boroughs. The Minister for Local Government and Housing has talked to the Local Government Association and explained that there will be a tight settlement. We know that money will go away from London. We need to know whether additional money will go away from London because of the cost of the new assembly.

Mr. Howard Flight: May I ask my hon. Friend what information people will have before the referendum on the future of the City of London Corporation? I think that the public believe that this is all about electing a new Lord Mayor of London and something that will take over the corporation. It is of major financial importance to know whether revenues from property rates will accrue to the new organisation or stay as they are. Central to knowing what one is voting for is knowing how the new arrangements will interact with the City.

Mr. Pickles: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am the bringer of bad news. Nothing in the Bill explains that. There is no duty on the Government to explain any of those important things before the people of London vote.
The people need to know whether powers will be taken from the boroughs. People within the London area come from distinct communities—that is where their roots are and where the power is. Before they are allowed to vote, that issue should be clear. We know that the strategic authority will have enormous powers on planning. The London boroughs will deal with only small considerations. Before people sign away the powers of the London boroughs, the consequences need to be explained in a White Paper or a draft Bill.
In reply to a question before the recess, the Minister for Transport in London suggested that the strategic authority might care to consider the finance of London Underground. I understand that that suggestion has been withdrawn, but most of the major decisions on London Underground will have been taken long before the assembly comes into being.
If we are to use referendums as part of our constitutional system, they should have legitimacy. If people are asked to take decisions without full knowledge, the legitimacy of the referendum is undermined. After all, on Second Reading many Labour Members seemed to think that the new strategic authority was to be a rebirth of the Greater London council. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) is shaking his head, but he should read the Second Reading debate. It is clear from that that a substantial proportion of Labour Members thought that the GLC was coming back.
We have the strange position in which Conservative Members are in general agreement with those on the Government Front Bench in that we both do not want to see the GLC come back. If Labour Members are so confused about the powers of the new strategic authority—they have had the benefit of reading their manifesto commitments—what chance does a member of the public have unless there is absolute disclosure? A system that treats the people as a rubber stamp treats them with cynical contempt.

Mr. Livingstone: I did not intend to participate at this stage of the debate, as there are more important substantive matters to come but, having listened to so much appalling twaddle and knowing the Conservatives' record, I have been provoked.
It will come as no surprise when I say that I have disagreements with my party on some of the details of its proposals for a new government for London. However, it is a bit much for the Conservatives to complain that the proposals are ill thought out, given the method of consultation used for the abolition of the previous London government, when 98 per cent. of the responses to the consultation were opposed to abolition, and, on the basis of 2 per cent. support, the Conservative Government went ahead. 
I recall that the entire exercise was not even agreed by the Cabinet. When the late beloved leaderene decided that she wanted to abolish regional government in London, she was told by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who went on to become Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), that it was barmy and, after a study at the Department of the Environment, that it could not be done. His successor, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) gave the same advice in the month before Mrs. Thatcher, at a meeting drawing up the Tory manifesto, sidelined the Cabinet by putting the proposal in the manifesto, when the Cabinet had not agreed to it.
There was no discussion and no consultation. The only study done in the Department of the Environment said that the plan would not work and was barmy. Having won the election on that and being seized by a fit of manifestoitis, the Conservatives had no plans for abolition and no prospect of having any plans for the abolition of the council within the two years before the next Greater London council election. They needed emergency legislation to abolish the election. It was passed in the House and overturned in another place, and the Government were forced into a humiliating retreat. They knew that it would take them 18 months to work out how to do it. It was a nightmare.
The guilty men and women who voted for that nonsense back in 1983 are in no position to question the fact that Labour has had a consultation, and asked genuine

questions of Londoners. We shall, however imperfectly, put a question—or two, if I have my way—to the people of London next year, and detailed legislation will then be introduced. That is a much more structured approach than the nonsense that we had before.

Sir Paul Beresford: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he had difficulty with some of the details. There were few details; there are few details. From past debates with him, I suspect that, after the referendum, he will have further arguments about the legislation, but it will be too late. Would he not prefer to allow the public to see more details beforehand? That would follow the position that he has taken over many years.

Mr. Livingstone: Londoners clearly want an assembly or a government of some kind.

Sir Paul Beresford: You do not know that.

Mr. Livingstone: Every opinion poll for the past 10 years has shown that. The specific nature of such a body will require long and detailed legislation that will take the best part of a year. There is no prospect of that legislation being squeezed into the timetable for this Session. Therefore, if we waited for a referendum to consult Londoners, the plans would probably be put back to 2000, and we would not get a mayor before the next election. However imperfect the arrangements may be, at least they give Londoners a chance to elect an assembly and a mayor who will be in office before the year 2000.

Sir Paul Beresford: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way to hear the same point made again. If the Government's plans are agreed to, Londoners will at least be consulted.
There are serious points on which my party is split, and important amendments to consider. I would have hoped that, instead of time-wasting, the Committee could debate serious matters. Dare I ask whether a filibuster is looming? That would merely take time away from the serious consideration of important issues.

Mr. Wilkinson: How refreshing it is to have the authentic voice of the Labour party in London participating in this important debate. I would not dream of referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) as appalling twaddle, but as usual his sense of history was rather colourful and not exactly scholastic.
It would be helpful for the Committee to focus more closely on amendments Nos. 13 and 14. Why are the Labour Government so keen that the referendum should be held on 7 May 1998? I suggest that they hope that the date will be useful for their election campaigns in the boroughs.
The record of Labour authorities in London is abysmal. The Government hope that there will be so much hype and such excitement about the issues of the referendum that their record will not come under the close scrutiny that it deserves. I can assure Ministers that, in my own borough of Hillingdon, it will. We have particular


problems relating to planning, for example, which the electors will want to address, as they did in the Uxbridge by-election. That may not be the case in other boroughs.
With regard to the length of time between the publication of the White Paper—or, as we insist, the publication of the Bill—and the referendum, there is much of great constitutional significance. The Liberals, as ever, are acting as the sweepers to the Labour team. They are happy with a two-month period between the White Paper and the referendum date.
Those of us who have been in the House for a while recognise that the White Paper process is a serious one which does not affect this House alone. It is a process of pre-legislative consultation which should encompass public opinion as a whole, interested bodies, industry, commerce and the City of London. The consultation must be meaningful. In the light of the representations made, many of the original proposals submitted must be reconsidered.
We are led to believe by Government spokesmen that if we are lucky, we will get the White Paper in the spring. That hardly allows time for the definitive proposals, which will be published only with the legislation, to be produced.
I would go further and say that the people of London should not be required to have a referendum on the future governance of London until the Bill is through both Houses, but I shall not quibble; amendment No. 14 is satisfactory, allowing one month between the publication of the Bill and the referendum date. I would have hoped that in a spirit of good will, the Government would allow the stages in this House—the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill—to be completed.
The trouble is that the Government regard the entire exercise as an attempt to seek popular approval in a referendum for a model of government—a prototype—which will be appropriate for the European elections. That is not spelt out in precise terms; nothing is. The Green Paper is the vaguest Green Paper that I have ever read.
By rights the Government should by this stage have presented the House with infinitely clearer proposals. There is no expectation that even by the early spring, when the White Paper is due to be published, they will have formulated their ideas clearly. One might have imagined that they would have done so by the election. Instead, it was an exercise in sloganeering about how wonderful an elected mayor and assembly would be. There was no effort to analyse the policy and spell it out, either in the election campaign or in the Green Paper.
As there has been such a policy vacuum, the people of London should at the very least have a month to consider in careful detail the precise proposals for which the Government will seek the approval of the electorate in the referendum. 
It is not right that the people of London should be the guinea pigs for constitutional change. I use the term "constitutional change" advisedly, because the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), admitted that the proposed assembly is a prototype for regional government for England as a whole. If it is so, the people of London need

much more than the one month that we anticipate between the publication of the Bill and the date of the referendum to make up their minds. It will be an issue that transcends London itself, and the people of London will wish to judge, in reaching their conclusion on referendum day, whether they wish to set a precedent that could be used in the further modification of our traditional forms of government.
6 pm
The Government's proposal is a constitutional monstrosity. They are seeking approval for something which even by 7 May will be largely unclear. They are expecting the people of London to accept as an act of faith that all will be well even though they will probably receive no clear explanation of how the assembly is to work, how the mayor will be able to obtain approval of his budget from the assembly and how the necessary moneys will be raised. The people of London are being asked to accept the biggest constitutional blank cheque in municipal history.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I support amendments Nos. 13 and 14, from which two issues arise. The first—probably the more important and certainly the one on which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have focused—concerns the fact that, at the point at which the electors of London will be asked to comment on the Government's entirely vague proposals for a mayor and an assembly, those proposals will not be before them in their full form, and certainly not in the form of a Bill.
The Government might, if they wished to comply with the spirit of amendment No. 14, produce a draft Bill. We understand that, on a number of issues, they intend—and it is an entirely laudable intention—to anticipate the introduction of legislation, and the more important the legislation, the more important it is that that should be done. Before a Bill is presented to the House for the first time, it should be the subject of a draft Bill that has been the focus of substantive consultation.
We are all aware of the numerous bodies in London and the numerous policy areas that will be affected by the Bill when it comes before us. With my constituency interests at heart, let me say that many of those interests relate not only to London but to London in its national context, and they too must be the subject of consultation.
It is entirely right, given the importance of the issues that are to be raised, that the Government should use the opportunity to present a draft Bill before proceeding to present a substantive Bill to the House in the 1998–99 Session. Surely it is entirely possible that the Government could proceed by publishing a draft Bill in the earlier part of 1998. Consistent with that, the Government could ask for a referendum, having acceded to the amendments, during 1998 without necessarily imperilling their timetable for the introduction of legislation and hence the introduction of a mayor and an assembly.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer in his place, but I would take issue with him that it is necessarily the case that to accept the amendments would be to delay the Government's timetable for the introduction of a mayor and an assembly.
As I have said, the first issue is whether the electors should have before them the proposals that will be set out in the Bill. Surely it is vital that they should. On Second


Reading I referred to the apparent anomaly of the Labour party having sought a mandate in its manifesto for the introduction of a mayor and an assembly, only to throw it away.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend talks about full disclosure, but surely there needs to be substantial disclosure. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who, like most Labour Members, is not in his place, argued that the entire process would be put in jeopardy if it were delayed because of the introduction of a Bill. Surely an indication of what the Government propose to do in relation to powers, functions and finance will be necessary.

Mr. Lansley: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that the Green Paper does not raise 61 questions that will become matters of detail at a later stage, so it is not possible to vote on the basis of proposals in the Green Paper that represent a substantive understanding of what the mayor and the assembly are to be.
It is of considerable importance to many, not least to my hon. Friends, to understand what is to be the relationship between the mayor and the assembly, because that determines whether the assembly should be composed of separately elected individuals or those drawn from the London boroughs. What sort of scrutiny and powers is the assembly to have in relation to the mayor? The Green Paper merely tells us that there needs to be a mechanism for the resolution of conflict. Indeed there does, but what is to be the mechanism, how is it to work and what are to be the respective powers?
We are in the business of constitution making and, as we shall find in due course in relation to some of the documents published on Scottish and Welsh devolution, that is not about everyone agreeing all the time. There must be a clear understanding of respective powers and of how conflicts are to be resolved.
One of the key issues is the relationship between the proposed Greater London authority and the London development agency. We do not know now what stage will be reached in the publication of details about the development agency and its relationship with the Greater London authority. Littered throughout the Green Paper are references that imply that the GLA is to be construed as a body that is taking to itself responsibilities of central Government and exercising those in relation to London. Other parts of the Green Paper make explicit reference to the GLA as analogous to a county council.
It makes an enormous difference to voters to know which we are talking about. If we are talking about a body that is essentially decentralised and using central Government powers, it would seem that there is a stronger case for the involvement of the boroughs in ensuring that that approach is consistent with borough strategies and priorities. If we are talking about a body that is analogous to a county council and by extension will be drawing many powers to itself from the boroughs, that will involve a substantial degradation or diminution of borough responsibilities—a matter to which the boroughs might like to respond.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: My hon. Friend may not be aware that I served on Westminster city

council. I remember the appalling delays and difficulties that ensued because those involved in planning had a foot in both camps. The business community and others in London should be made well aware of the problems that will arise, unless wording is precise, as a result of delays in central London activities, especially the development of properties.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Green Paper is indeterminate as to whether the Greater London authority will issue planning guidance, in the manner of the Secretary of State, or create a structure plan, in the manner of a county council. To those of us concerned with land use issues, the manner in which the development, control and land use powers are to be determined, and the influence that the Greater London authority could exercise over those powers, is of the essence.
When it comes to voting on whether there should be a Greater London authority in the manner described, many people in the outer London boroughs will ask, "What powers will this body have in relation to the green belt and green space in London; and what influence can it have over development control in our borough?" The answer is not clear. It is not in the Green Paper.
At this stage one has to ask what the Government are trying to achieve by their timing of the referendum. The timing is, on the face of it, simply to reiterate the Government's intention to introduce a Bill to provide for a mayor and an assembly. They are, in effect, mandated to legislate for a mayor and an assembly, because that was in their manifesto, and it is the opening comment in the Green Paper.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood that, if Ministers are looking for a referendum to play its proper part constitutionally in relation to this issue, they have two options. They can legislate for a referendum to take place once a Bill has secured its passage through both Houses, so that the voters of London can, in a constitutional manner, act as a democratic legitimising body for the intentions of Parliament and so that Parliament can submit its determinations to the electorate to secure their agreement. That option is entirely preferable constitutionally.
Alternatively, if this is to be an advisory referendum, which I suspect is the Government's intention, the Government should seek the advice of the electorate substantively on the issues that arise from the manifesto. When Labour went to the polls on 1 May, it did so on the basis that it would introduce a mayor and an assembly for London, but not knowing what the mayor and the assembly would do.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are trying to persuade the public at large in London that one of the assets of the Government's proposal is that the management, control and organisation of London would be more efficient? However, when he touched on planning, he touched on the very area on which I have severe doubts. People need to know what will be the relationships between the boroughs, the new Greater London authority and the mayor, the Government office for London, the regional development agency association and the Government. Should we not reflect on the fact that London is so important to this country that it


is unlikely that there will be any final decision anyway, and that it will have to be taken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. From my reading of the Green Paper, and from my knowledge of planning issues, it seems to me that it would be very difficult in relation to any major development and planning issue that arose in London to know how the Secretary of State, who remains a court of appeal in relation to the powers of the Greater London authority and the boroughs would exercise his powers if the Government office for London were absorbed into the Greater London authority.
I suspect that the Green Paper is moving towards a situation in which the Greater London authority is both analogous to a county council, as one would understand the term outside London, and would exercise many of the powers and responsibilities of the Government office. Yet outside London these are separate bodies, and for jolly good reasons.
I come now to the second issue arising from the amendments. Why 7 May 1998? What is important about that date? From the electoral administration point of view it is cheaper and easier to have the votes on the same day. I entirely take the point, as a saving of £2 million to £3 million could be achieved. However, when examined in rather more detail, it becomes a little more strange.
Are the issues to be determined in the two elections the same? In theory they are not, because the issues relating to the mayor and the assembly are issues for a considerable time ahead. The issues to be determined on that matter are the strategic governance of London from 2000 onwards, not the policy priorities now for London as exercised by the boroughs. There is an important difference between those issues, which suggests that they should be separated.
6.15 pm
How will the boroughs interact with the referendum? Existing councillors of London boroughs were elected in 1996 and therefore without a mandate in relation to the Government's proposals. I suspect that, although London boroughs will have their own views on the referendum, they will be unable to acquire a mandate—which they might seek to do—at the local government elections next May to influence the introduction of legislation. They would benefit from the Government making further and faster progress in presenting their proposals through a White Paper and a draft Bill, so that councillors and candidates can seek a mandate to change the governance of London.
At the moment, the boroughs will not interact with the referendum because they will be conducting their own campaign. Technically, the borough elections will be held without knowledge of whether the people of London support a mayor and an assembly.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the most likely reason for selecting 7 May for the referendum that, without the election taking place on the same date, the turnout in the referendum would be totally derisory? It would be even worse than the Welsh referendum, and it would be

patently clear that there was no democratic mandate for what the Government propose. This is the only way in which they can ensure at least a 30 per cent. turnout on the day.

Mr. Lansley: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that point, as he has saved me the trouble of having to do so, and he made it better than I would have done. I am sure that he is right.
I shall dwell not so much on the politically manipulative aspects of the Government's proposal as on the constitutional aspect. It seems highly undesirable in constitutional terms for the Government to invite the people of London to vote on the referendum issues, which relate to the governance of London after 2000, while the people of London should focus in the local government elections on the government of London and the policy issues that affect London from 1998 to 2002.

Mr. Pickles: Does it not go a stage further than that? Will not the people of London elect their various borough councillors not knowing whether they will be stripped of power?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the council candidates who will present themselves to the electorate in the run-up to 7 May 1998 will be unaware of the context in which the second half of their term will be conducted—with what powers, under what circumstances, and so on. From 1998 to 2000, they will know that they are exercising the current set of powers and be able to deal with the issues, but they will have said to the electorate, "Give us an opportunity to run this borough through to 2002." But for the subsequent years, 2000 to 2002, they may not have the power.

Sir Paul Beresford: Or the money.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The money will have gone—indeed, I suspect that a great deal of it will have gone—into the coffers of the Greater London authority, perhaps substantially more than is currently spent by the London boroughs.
Let me return to the question of political manipulation. It seems to me that, in the run-up to the 7 May local elections next year, the decision to hold a referendum on the same day will have a political impact. It is a perfect device employed by the Government to avoid addressing some of the real issues. By that time—in this context, the presence in the Chamber of the Minister for Transport in London is helpful—the Government should have begun the process of telling the electorate what they meant by "an integrated transport strategy". It was clear that they had no idea what that meant when they secured office on 1 May.
The same applies to the questions that were presented in the Green Paper in relation to the government of London. It turned out that the Government's policy consisted of 60 questions—or however many were involved in the transport strategy document.
When we come to the elections next May, the Government will doubtless say, "Don't worry precisely what we mean by an integrated transport strategy in London now. You can vote for a Greater London authority." The Green Paper, which I consulted, makes it


clear that there will be something even better: a genuine integrated transport strategy. I quote from the Green Paper. The heaping up of adjectives before the word "transport" knows no end.
It strikes me that the device that is being used—the holding of two elections on the same day—is intended to allow the Government to escape from the critical issues, and, in many instances, to escape the criticisms that will fall on Labour local authorities in such areas as Hackney and Islington by saying, "With one bound you, the electorate, will all be free. The critical issue is whether you vote for a Greater London authority. If you do, all your problems will disappear in the future, because the Green Paper says that the Greater London authority will be more effective" —and all the other adjectives that go along with whatever the GLA is supposed to do.
There will be a very undesirable conjunction on 7 May. I understand that, in practice, it is an administrative convenience, but I feel that administrative convenience should take second place to political need and constitutional desirability, and I consider it constitutionally desirable for the Government to proceed. I see no reason why such a timetable should be used, and no argument was presented for it on Second Reading.
It would be entirely consistent with the Government's timetable to introduce the mayor and assembly in 2000, and to bring in legislation in the parliamentary Session of 1998–99. It would be perfectly possible, in advance of that, to hold a referendum in, let us say, September 1998. It would be perfectly possible, in advance of that, to present a White Paper and a draft Bill. The Government would have to go a long way to convince Conservative Members that they were not competent to achieve that.
Such action would put things in their proper order. Perhaps, when we consider other issues in relation to the Bill, we shall suggest ways in which the Government's failure to spell out what they intend to achieve, and the way in which they will achieve it, can also be put in order.

Mr. John Horam: If I understand the Government's position rightly, the commitment made by the Minister in response to the genuine unease that is felt about the problem means that they are saying that they will produce a White Paper in the spring. I do not know where the Minister made that commitment, but I understand that that is the nature of it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out, the first question to be asked is what is meant by "the spring". The Minister should tell us exactly how much time he would expect to elapse between the publication of the White Paper and the referendum that he expects to take place on 7 May. Are we talking about four weeks, six weeks or two months? "Spring" is an extraordinarily elastic term, which allows the Government to do pretty much what they want. If the Minister is really talking about producing a White Paper at the very beginning of a local government campaign in London, I think that that would be a travesty of any proper consideration of the Government's proposals, separate from the existing governance of London.
There is a more important point that will have a resonance for hon. Members who are long enough in the tooth to have been in the House for some time. White

Papers can be pretty white. White Papers can be pretty elementary, and pretty skeletal. I do not make that point in a party sense; I am talking about Parliament versus the Executive—the way in which the Executive treats Parliament.
When I was on the Back Benches under the last Government, I was shocked and scandalised—and said so in a debate—by a White Paper produced by my own Government proposing the privatisation of the railways. I felt that it left unanswered so many fundamental questions about—for instance—the way in which the privatisation would be carried out that it constituted an abuse of the procedures of the House.
I pose the same question to the Government now, not on a party basis but simply on the basis of how they hope to treat Parliament during this process. After all, the Government have said things about that, and they are doing things about it—for example, by modernising our procedures. They have raised hopes that they will proceed in a more composed way than Governments have proceeded in the past.
We need to know first what the Government mean by a White Paper. As I have said, a White Paper is pretty elementary, and I feel that the Government are left with far too much room in which to manoeuvre. The Minister has a problem—one with which we are all acquainted. If he had to produce a Bill, he would have to secure agreement from his colleagues on the Government committee that authorises the drafting of Bills. He knows well enough that he would not secure the agreement of his colleagues. They would say, "You have not got the referendum through, and we therefore do not know whether the legislation will be passed. How can we justify the expense of constructing a Bill, and all that goes with that—the time of the Parliamentary Counsel, for example?"[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Far too many private conversations are going on, especially near the Chair. I am finding it difficult to follow the debate.

Mr. Horam: As I was saying, the time that the Parliamentary Counsel would need to devote the necessary attention to detail could not be justified. The Minister has a problem: he knows that he could not produce a Bill, even if he wanted to.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Why not produce a draft Bill? The whole point of producing a Bill is that it is a necessary intellectual exercise, in which those involved must go into the minutiae. As has been said repeatedly, the devil is in the detail. The point is well made: as Disraeli said, if you have a good point repeat it, repeat it, repeat it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cliché."] Disraeli had some rather good clichés.
I am saying that, if it is possible to embark on the intellectual exercise that is necessary to produce a Bill. that will resolve some of the points about which people are concerned. After all, the Government are producing a draft Budget next week or thereabouts. That process is normally shrouded in secrecy, as was pointed out by the previous Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
It is extraordinary that the Government should produce a draft Budget dealing with a subject that is renowned for secrecy, but should not produce a draft Bill dealing with a


subject on which there should be consultation—on which, indeed, consultation is taking place. They have got themselves into an absurdly illogical position. That is one suggestion: the Government should commit themselves to producing at least a draft Bill, while not committing themselves to a final Bill. After all, the Minister knows that he cannot do that.
I want to be helpful to the Minister. I hope that I am being helpful. Even if he cannot do that, he could, this evening, give some clothing to the White Paper proposals that he may produce. Can he tell us exactly what a White Paper would cover? My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) mentioned planning. Planning is a major consideration when a new body is being put into an existing arrangement in which there are several London boroughs, government of London organisations and, indeed, the Government themselves. Problems will occur because of the sheer complexity of the proposals, and it would be sensible to deal with those problems in detail now.
The Government should address the concerns of hon. Members and the citizens of London by spelling out this evening how the White Paper will be structured. Can the Minister give us more information about the chapters that it will contain and the headings that it will cover? Will it contain the detail that we would expect from a proper White Paper? That would assuage some of my doubts about the excessive room for manoeuvre that he has given himself, which we suspect will be exploited as usual by the spin doctors. The House will be given the minimum information that is consistent with parliamentary adequacy, and the people of London will not be given the detailed information they need to make a valid judgment on the Government's proposals.
6.30 pm
That lack of information is one of the reasons why the response to the consultation was so pathetic. Only 1,200 people responded, many of whom may be opposed to the proposals. As we know from an earlier intervention, one of those responses came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), so perhaps there were 1,201 responses out of 7 million people in London, including 5 million electors.

Mrs. Gorman: Does that not suggest that the people of London are far too canny to want to be lumbered with this great expense? We are signing a blank cheque, and it may turn out that there is not enough interest in the proposal to go ahead with it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should not allow the same to happen with this proposal for London as happened with the Welsh referendum? Only 20 or 25 per cent. of the people in Wales showed any interest, whereas the Government talk about the result as if it were a great victory for them.

Mr. Horam: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister has a problem. He is linking the referendum to the elections on 7 May, in the hope that it will boost the turnout and will conceal the fact that people are not as keen on his proposals as he wants them to be. He has an interest in having a real debate about the proposals.

It is no good resting on a consultation process that yields 1,200 responses. If my calculations are correct, that is 0.0002 per cent. of the people and institutions of London.

Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend realise that that take-up is less than the average double glazing salesman gets?

Mr. Horam: I do not know whether 0.0002 per cent. is the proportion of London Labour Members present in the Chamber at the moment. I noticed that the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) briefly appeared, no doubt so that their names would appear in the debate, but suddenly vanished. They said that 2 per cent. was an unacceptable figure. The Minister would be delighted with 2 per cent., given that only 0.0002 per cent. responded to his overtures.
The Minister has a responsibility to the House to flesh out this evening the ground that he proposes to cover.

Mr. Raynsford: I shall do so.

Mr. Horam: I am getting nice smiles from the Minister. My hon. Friends will want to intervene in his speech to find out what ground he will cover in the promised White Paper, when he intends to publish it and when we will have some clear-cut proposals that the people of London can debate.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I do not want to speak for long, but I believe that a fundamental issue is at stake. As this is a matter of such importance, it is extraordinary that people in Scotland, Wales and now in London are being asked to vote merely on the principle, and not on any details. It is odd that referendums come before legislation. These referendums have major constitutional implications. Expenditure matters will have to be considered, and powers will have to be shifted from one body to another.
The public are concerned about the honesty of politicians. I am a new Member, and I have noticed a great deal of dishonesty. The way in which the Government have behaved since they took office is not as the electorate might have expected. There have been betrayals. Many Labour supporters refer to the Government's U-turns as betrayals. They have made U-turns on tuition fees, cold weather payments and tobacco advertising.
The people of London will be asked to vote on a proposal about which they know very little. The last time they were in office, the Labour Government had their fingers burned, because they proposed legislation before the referendums and could not get their business through the House.
The name of the London authority also raises an issue of honesty. It is now to be the Greater London authority, whereas in the past it was the Greater London council. Are the Government frightened to go back to that august body, or is this change of name yet another smokescreen?
More particularly, I want to know exactly what the authority will do. Will it be yet another tier of bureaucracy? From my travels around my constituency and throughout the country, it is clear that people are tired of politicians and of government, yet the Government


want to create further tiers of bureaucracy and more levels of government throughout the kingdom. These proposals have many more constitutional implications.
Where will the balance of power lie between existing London authorities and the new authority? What will be the division of power? What will the new mayor of this great authority do? Will he be powerful or not? Will he chair council meetings, and if so, which ones?

Mrs. Gorman: Who will serve on the authority? As I understand it, there will be some well-paid jobs in the assembly. I have heard that the lord mayor will be paid about £100,000. What will happen to the district councils if people flock to serve on the new authority? District authorities are established bodies which handle local issues, but they may be undermined.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. No one has any idea what will happen.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend may like to ask for a small pause in our discussions, as there is no one on the Government Front Bench. The Liberal Democrats and the Government are arranging a stitch-up beyond the Bar.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but, as there is now someone on the Government Front Bench, I shall continue.
I cannot answer the questions that I have posed. It is up to the Government to explain to the House and to the people of London the role of the new authority and the mayor, and how that will affect the role of district authorities. If a £100,000 salary is to be paid, many people will be asking how they can become mayor of this great body.
As the Government get into further difficulties, they start to retreat into themselves. I advise them not to keep putting up smokescreens, because it is not doing them any good.
On a wider constitutional issue, the Government should explain to the people of London and to the House whether they are creating yet another region of Europe. There will be some sort of government in Scotland and Wales, and the Government have not yet published their plans for regional government in England. Will the Greater London authority be yet another of those regions? That would have important implications. These matters should be explained not in a White Paper, but in full legislation before the people of London are asked to vote on it.

Mrs. Gorman: I speak from experience as a councillor and as someone who is not a lover of referendums. In fact, I am not a lover of extra government, because I think that we should have the least possible government. If the Opposition's role is to give more power back to the individual, the less government we have the better. We should not take powers away from the individual and give them to central bodies.
One of the things I do to keep in touch with London, and with London opinion, is a little radio programme on Sunday mornings with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is no longer in his place. That is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. We invite people from London to telephone about matters that worry them. The radio programme enables us to find out much

more about the views of Londoners than we are ever likely to discover through the referendum. People worry about law and order, but, of course, there are already strategic bodies such as the police and the fire service to deal with such matters. Therefore, the new authority need not become involved in that.
People worry about their dustbins being regularly emptied and about the cleanliness of their streets. Those functions are carried out fairly effectively, certainly in the Conservative boroughs in London, although I cannot say the same for Camden and Islington, where the streets are filthy and the rates are such that most people try to leave them. They certainly send their children to school outside those boroughs. People are worried about education in London, but I do not think that there will be any suggestion of the new body taking over council powers, because the councils will fight like hell to keep them.
It might be a good idea to take the power to control schools away from many London boroughs whose schools are atrocious. The rare exceptions are Wandsworth and Westminster. They run good schools, but, of course, they have Conservative administrations.
People worry about transport and roads.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is embarking on a Second Reading speech. The debate is tightly drawn and deals with the date of the referendum.

Mrs. Gorman: Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Lord.
Londoners have strong views, and offering them a blank cheque referendum will not let us know whether they want a detailed say. The referendum question will require just a yes or no and the Government owe it to the people of London to say that, if not enough of them vote in the referendum, they will not proceed beyond it. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that, because there has been little response.
We must take account of the serious difficulties that arise with another layer of government. That will be evident on planning issues. Such strategic matters should be reflected in the information that the Government give to people before the referendum. If it is not, people will be voting for a pig in a poke. If people are not told what the authority involves, they will not know whether they want it. The Minister must deal with some of those issues or we shall be debating nothing more than bread and circuses. We have had a blank cheque, a pig in a poke, bread and circuses and the devil in the detail. The new authority may be an abomination.
Before Londoners are asked to decide on the issue, they must know that if not enough of them take an interest in it in the first place the Government will take note of that. I am putting to the Minister the matters that Londoners are interested in enough to phone up about on a Sunday morning after breakfast and before they get down to cooking the lunch. I have used this opportunity to pass that information on. I know that my hon. Friends back me in calling for information, and I hope that the Minister will deal with these important matters.

Mr. Flight: I should like to deal in more detail with the point that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). The referendum is self-evidently to endorse Government proposals. What


has been aired so far is not simply a replacement for the GLC. The City is in the middle of London. Financial services represent 23 per cent. of our national income and are crucial to our prosperity. London citizens need to know the proposals for the City corporation. That is fundamental in several key areas. Will the authority have tax powers, will it make the City uncompetitive, will it have planning powers and will it be relevant to the efficient operation of the most capitalist part of our economy?
6.45 pm
It is not good enough to seek a blank cheque. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that funny. It is a jolly good cliché, but if they damage the City of London they will find it difficult to get cheques out of anybody. The referendum is about the future of London and the most important part of our economy. If the Government wish properly to consult people, they must advise people of their proposals about that most important part of London. There is no reason why the proposals cannot be set out in detail in a draft Bill or a proper Bill with adequate time for digestion before the referendum. The referendum should not be held until these matters have been resolved.

Mr. Raynsford: The debate has been protracted and not entirely illuminating. I was frequently reminded of literary images of conversations among a group of dead souls who were endlessly repeating the same clichés—how they tripped off their tongues—and trying to reassure themselves that the world had not changed on 1 May. The world did change, and the Conservatives are in opposition. Labour is in government and we have positive proposals to give the people of London the right once again to determine who governs their city.
The Conservative party took away from the people of London the democratic right to elect their own citywide authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it, and if Opposition Members will bear with me they will hear a few simple facts about their party's record when it was in power.
We take no lessons from Conservatives about the exercise of democracy. They did not believe in consulting Londoners before abolishing the GLC. They did not make proposals for draft Bills or other constitutional innovations to allow people an opportunity to test their proposals before they abolished the GLC. The Conservative party did not publish anything before producing a paving Bill which, using their majority, they rammed through the House. The people of London had no say. It is pure hypocrisy for Conservative Members to suggest that what we are doing is undemocratic.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No. The Government are committed to ensuring—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I have listened for approximately an hour and a half to a protracted

debate with frequent Opposition interventions. They might have the courtesy to listen briefly to me before intervening.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the people of London have full information about our proposals before they vote in the referendum on whether they wish to have a new strategic Greater London authority comprising a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. We have already demonstrated our commitment to full public consultation. Within three months of coming into office, we published a Green Paper. We circulated many copies of the summary version of it. There has been extensive media coverage and a substantial response to the Green Paper. We received more than 1,200 responses, and they are still coming in after the consultation closure date, which has meant that it has taken some time to analyse the responses to 61 questions.
I put it to Conservative Members and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who first made the point, which many of them repeated, that putting out a newsletter—which probably asks the electorate whether they endorse the hon. Gentleman's actions in relation to a popular issue such as repairing council houses—will almost certainly elicit a good and positive response, but he will probably understand that the responses to 61 questions are not necessarily as simple as those to his question.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not intend to protract my comments, but, as an exercise in democracy, I am happy to tell the Minister that our surveys had four pages of questions—I concede that they were not all answered—and that that produced 5,000 or 6,000 answers, so I still think that the Government could have done a bit better in relation to responses from Londoners.

Mr. Raynsford: I am not going to enter a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the wordiness of Liberal Democrats' literature and the number of questions that they pose. I will say only that we have had a full and comprehensive response from a wide range of London organisations and individual Londoners. We are analysing those comments carefully because many valuable contributions have been made in the consultation. We take that seriously and we will pay good heed to it before we produce our final proposals.

Mr. Lansley: The Minister makes the point about the previous Government's consultation, or lack of consultation as he alleges, but perhaps he will be able to help me, because my memory is not as good as his. I recall a White Paper on London, I think in 1994, which was published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, and which sought widespread consultation. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House now or at an early opportunity how many responses there were to that consultation.

Mr. Raynsford: The most striking thing about that consultation was that the then Government did not choose to ask the people of London whether there was a need for a strategic authority for London, despite which 30 per cent. of respondents said that they wanted a strategic


authority for London. That showed Londoners' response to the bogus attempt at consultation by the previous Government.
We have said clearly that we are consulting the people of London and we will lay before them the full details of the Government's proposals in a White Paper. We will also ensure that every household in London receives a neutral and factual summary of the White Paper, setting out the proposals on which they will be asked to vote, as well as other initiatives, to ensure that everyone knows what the issues are.

Mr. Pickles: Give us the date.

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to that. He is terribly impatient. I assure him that I will give him the answer that he is looking for. We intend to publish the White Paper—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members could restrain themselves, they might be interested in this. We intend to publish the White Paper during or before the week commencing 23 March.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) asked whether the definition of spring was within that period. He made the point that spring technically begins on 21 March. Therefore, we intend to publish the White Paper at the earliest opportunity in the spring. That will allow six weeks for the issues to be considered fully by the people of London, before they vote in the referendum on 7 May.

Mr. Wilkinson: The Minister is making a point of great importance in announcing that, some six weeks before the referendum day, the electorate of London—every household-will receive a copy of the White Paper. Will the Government facilitate the issue of literature to the contrary? For example, will the no campaign—if such a campaign materialises—have freepost facilities?

Mr. Raynsford: I have said that we will publish a factual and neutral summary of the proposals. There will be no public funding for either a yes campaign or a no campaign. The Government will set out the options and invite the people of London to make a choice. That is the right and proper course for the Government to follow.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) talked about the merits of publishing legislation and giving a period of perhaps a month for people to consider it before they voted in a referendum. Legislation is of necessity often very technical. The Bill to give effect to our proposals on London will inevitably involve many technical provisions. The idea that the electorate of London should have one month to absorb highly technical legislation, while the concept of giving people six weeks to digest a White Paper expressed in clear English is rejected, shows a curious sense of how to ensure the best possible public consultation.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no changes between publication of the White Paper and the First Reading of the Bill—that there will be no changes between the detail of the White Paper and that in the Bill?

Mr. Raynsford: Of course I cannot give that undertaking because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the

first thing that will happen after the White Paper's publication is the referendum, and if it produced a no vote, there would clearly be a change in the Government's position. It is preposterous to suggest that we should give an undertaking that there will never be any change in our White Paper proposals.
We are holding the referendum on 7 May deliberately to gain the benefits from combining the poll with local government elections. That will result in a considerable saving in public expenditure, which I would have thought all hon. Members would welcome. Separating the referendum date from the local election day would probably result in additional public expenditure of some £2 million to £3 million and could reduce voter turnout. That is not in the interests of democracy or of economy, and the Government do not intend to propose that.
As for the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, South, I cannot believe that he is suggesting that the interests of democratic choice are best served by asking the people of London to scrutinise a Bill with 100 or more clauses.

Mr. John Hayes: The Minister wants the referendum to be held on the same day as local elections. Is that because he fears the possibility of a derisory turnout in the referendum, thus removing the mandate to act? I am mindful of course of the experience in Wales. To support what I have said, may I tell him that I was in Greenwich this morning discussing the matter? Not only had no one to whom I spoke heard of the Minister, but no one had heard of these proposals.

Mr. Raynsford: It was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just arrived in the Chamber and clearly did not listen when I spelled out the obvious financial advantages. Before he says anything more, I advise him that he does not appear to have honoured the normal parliamentary courtesy of giving a Member of Parliament notice that he is visiting his constituency.
We propose that Londoners will have the chance to scrutinise clear and comprehensive proposals in the White Paper. It will then be for Parliament to scrutinise legislation, taking account of the content of the White Paper and the verdict of the people of London. People who suggest that the referendum should take place after Parliament has completed consideration of a Bill support a strange constitutional concept that would make the House subordinate to a referendum. Our referendum will precede parliamentary consideration. This House will have the final say. That is right and proper, and in accordance with the constitution of this country.

Mr. Pickles: I want to press the Minister on a couple of important points. He said that he will produce the White Paper in the early part of March. Is he giving an undertaking that the Government's preferred position on important matters—who pays, where the powers come from, the respective roles of the mayor and the strategic authority—will be explicitly laid out for the people of London?
7 pm

Mr. Raynsford: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has not been following the Government's statements, that the decisions will be


spelled out in the White Paper. We are not yet in a position to do so, because we have not completed the analysis of the responses to the Green Paper. We are rightly carefully considering all those matters before we reach a decision. We will spell out in the White Paper our proposed framework for the new authority, including all the relevant considerations about how that authority will be constituted, what its powers will be, the relationship between the mayor and the assembly, how the assembly will be elected and all other considerations of which the public will need to be aware before reaching a decision in the referendum.

Sir Paul Beresford: A few other considerations have been mentioned in the debate, the key ones being the source of the financing and the Government's suggestion that the new authority and mayor will be more efficient. Will the Minister explain how they will be more efficient?

Mr. Raynsford: The White Paper will spell out what the Green Paper showed—winding up the complex and undemocratic raft of quangos left by the previous Government and creating a more streamlined and coherent administration will achieve significant savings and ensure that the objective we have spelled out in the Green Paper is met. We do not envisage its resulting in an increase in public expenditure. That is not what we are interested in; we are interested in good, efficient administration that will ensure that Londoners themselves have a democratic say in how their city is governed. We want them to have the prospect of an efficient authority delivering the services that Londoners want.
The proposal favoured by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is close to our proposal. He wants a reasonable period for consideration of the White Paper proposals before the vote. We are not far apart. We believe that six weeks is adequate; he would like it to be two months. If it had been possible to complete all the work necessary within that time, we would have wanted to do so. However, we are working to a tight time scale and we want to provide a full opportunity to consider and discuss all the relevant issues with all the interested parties.
The hon. Gentleman obviously recognises the difficulties, because his amendment specifically exempts the electoral arrangements from the requirement of two months' notice. I hope that, having received that assurance, he will feel that he does not need to press his amendment.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised a question about information on responses to the consultation. We have taken advice on that, and I am pleased to tell the House that the Government are now able to place in the Library a list of the responses by 21 November. We can do a little better than we had originally expected, to ensure that hon. Members have access to the list of organisations that have responded to the consultation.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), as it is neither practicable nor desirable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As has been said, we are constitution—making. That is why we are on the Floor of

the House and not upstairs in Committee. It is important to have this debate, although I did not expect a debate about whether we have a pre-legislative or a post-legislative referendum to be quite so extended. If I may make some observations about the style of participation, it is fair to say that the debate has been a little thin on Labour attendance, but equally a little thick on Conservative repetition. Conservative Members took 123 minutes to make two points over and over again.
I share with the Minister and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) the view that it is a bit rich to hear from Conservative Members that there should be more time for consultation. Anyone who has been involved in local government, let alone the debate about the Greater London council—I served on the Standing Committee that debated the abolition of the GLC and the Inner London education authority—will remember that, first, there was not any real consultation, and secondly, when there was, the Conservative Government paid not a blind bit of notice to what anybody said.
I say seriously to the hon. Member for Brent, East that it would be wonderful if we had, for the first time in my political memory, a Government who, when they consulted, went by the results of the consultation. I do not refer to the issue that we are debating; the Minister knows that I share his view that the overwhelming majority of Londoners are in favour of Londonwide government. However, we are close to having a Government announcement about their views on the London health service. I sincerely hope that they have listened to the responses, that the consultation will mean something and that we do not have, with this Administration, consultation exercises that are then blithely ignored.
The hon. Member for Brent, East made a suggestion that the House will encourage. He said that the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, was advised by everyone that she should not abolish the GLC, but she took no notice. It would be great evidence of openness of government if we knew civil service advice before we voted on Government proposals. To take a topical example, I do not think that the chief medical officer is terribly keen on back-tracking on tobacco advertising. If, on government and regional government, we heard civil service advice as well as the Government's view, we would be better informed.
I am looking forward to the document that the Government say they will produce in the spring. I do not know whether we ever get entirely factually neutral documents, but if the Minister seriously wants it to be a neutral as possible, we will happily collaborate and willingly say that, although we may not support all the proposals, they at least honestly represent the Government's view. It is important that electors are not misled and that they are given information.
I was amused by the Conservatives' suggestion that there might be funding for the yes and no campaigns—the Tories have not yet decided whether they will be on the side of the yes or the no vote. Perhaps we will hear tonight whether the Conservatives, having originally been against London government, will now say that they are in favour of some form of London government. The Liberal Democrats may not like the exact proposals, but some democratic London government is better than none, so we will be on the side of the yes vote.
If the one or two London Conservative Members who are present decide to be on the side of the no vote, they will suffer in the ballot box in the local council elections. The prizes may well go to those on the side of the yes vote because it means being in favour of London government. Being in favour of democratic government is positive, whereas being against it is negative.
The hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—the Conservative speeches were notable for the number of speakers who are not London Members—suggested that we should have a draft Bill. We are in favour of draft Bills, but I said that if we are to have the White Paper in March, we will not get a draft Bill in March. It will be a service to hon. Members if we can have a draft Bill after 7 May, but before we start the summer recess.
Establishing England's first proper regional government will not be easy, and the Bill creating that government will be long and complicated. As the Minister and colleagues who were Members when we abolished the GLC—under a Tory Administration—will know, there are many difficult issues. It would be helpful if we could first examine draft legislation.
The Minister made two concessions, for which I am grateful. He told us that, this week, we will be able to see the list of respondents. That represents progress. I did not quite understand—perhaps he will tell us—whether the documents or only the list will be placed in the Library this week. Nevertheless, that concession is certainly better than the original date of 1 December, because we will have the documents before the second day of the Bill's consideration in Committee.

Mr. Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The list will be in the Library, and copies of it will be available for inspection in the Department.

Mr. Hughes: That is very welcome. It would have been better to receive the list before today, but I will not be churlish about it. We will have a chance to see the documents before the second day of the Bill's Committee stage. We will at least know who said what, including what the right hon. Member for Beckenham—

Mr. Forth: Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Hughes: Yes—so that we know what the right hon. Member for somewhere near Beckenham submitted.
The Minister said that the Government are now committed to producing the White Paper in the same week as spring begins—spring does not always begin on the same day—which is a firm commitment and represents progress. The Liberal Democrats should have preferred to have two months between the White Paper and the vote, because we think that that would be better. I gather that, by definition, civil servants always say that such matters will take a long time.
The Liberal Democrats take a different view from that of the Conservative party. We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum—which would slow down the proposals. We do not think that that would be an appropriate sequence of events.
As only a matter of two weeks separates the Government's position from ours, we should move on to other aspects of the Bill. If the House wants to vote, it can do so once; but it will not be detained by a second vote. If you, Mr. Lord, are able and willing to select amendments Nos. 13 and 14, I will not press our amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 1, line 8, after 'prescribe', insert
'(being a date not earlier than one month after the publication of the Government's bill for the establishment of that Authority)'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 339.

Division No. 90]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Arbuthnot, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Johnson Smith,


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Key, Robert


Beggs, Roy
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Brady, Graham
Letwin, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lidington, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


(Chipping Barnet)
MacKay, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Madel, Sir David


(Rushcliffe)
Maples, John


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
May, Mrs Theresa


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Prior, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Randall, John


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gibb, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
St Aubyn, Nick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gray, James
Shepherd, Richard


Greenway, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Grieve, Dominic
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hayes, John
Syms, Robert


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Horam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter






Townend, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trimble, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Walter, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Stephen Day.


NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coleman, Iain


Atkins, Charlotte
Connarty, Michael


Austin, John
Corbett, Robin


Baker, Norman
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Corston, Ms Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cotter, Brian


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cranston, Ross


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Best, Harold
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blizzard, Bob
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Borrow, David
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradshaw, Ben
Doran, Frank


Brake, Tom
Dowd, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Drew, David


Breed, Colin
Drown, Ms Julia


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw


Browne, Desmond
Efford, Clive


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Burgon, Colin
Flint, Caroline


Burnett, John
Follett, Barbara


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Cable, Dr Vincent
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell—Savours, Dale
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Canavan, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil


Caplin, Ivor
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Norman A


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chidgey, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Church, Ms Judith
Gorrie, Donald





Grant, Bernie
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Hain, Peter
McWilliam, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marek, Dr John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Harris, Dr Evan
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meale, Alan


Heppell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hesford, Stephen
Michael, Alun


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hinchliffe, David
Milburn, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Miller, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hood, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moore, Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jamieson, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Öpik, Lembit


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Plaskitt, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pollard, Kerry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leslie, Christopher
Radice, Giles


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Livsey, Richard
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lock, David
Rooker, Jeff


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted 


McCabe, Steve
Ruane, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian






Savidge, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Sawford, Phil
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sedgemore, Brian
Touhig, Don


Shaw, Jonathan
Trickett, Jon


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Truswell, Paul


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wallace, James


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watts, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Webb, Steve


Snape, Peter
White, Brian


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Spellar, John
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Steinberg, Gerry
Willis, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wise, Audrey


Stringer, Graham
Worthington, Tony


Stunell, Andrew
Wray, James


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


(Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. John McFall and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 10.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
No. 18, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'question' and insert 'two questions'.
No. 12, in schedule, page 6, line 2, leave out from 'Paper' to end and add—


'Q1. Are you in favour of regional government for London exercised by an elected Greater London Authority?
Put a cross (X) in one box:

YES
NO
Q2. Are you in favour of the Greater London Authority made up of:
(A) an elected assembly with a mayor elected from the assembly; or
(B) an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor.
Put a cross (X) in the box of your choice.'.
No. 19, in schedule, page 6, line 3, leave out from `paper' to end and add—
'Q.1. Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor for Greater London?

Yes
No


Q.2. Are you in favour of a directly elected assembly for Greater London?


Yes
No'

Mr. Hughes: We have reached what is probably the most important debate in Committee, as it deals with a fundamental matter—what the electorate in London will be asked in a referendum. The Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of regional government, and we hope that it is approved by the electors in the English regions. We are happy that the referendum in London will take place on 7 May next year, and that democratically elected local government will be restored.
I would go further, and say that the Greater London council was not securely established regional government, but developed from the old London county council. We are pleased that we stood on the same platform as the Government and supported regional government in London. We shall certainly continue pushing for regional government in London to be followed by regional government elsewhere in England.

Mr. Forth: More bureaucrats.

Mr. Hughes: There will be not more but fewer bureaucrats, who will certainly have much more accountability than there is now or than there ever was under the Conservative Government, who handed over London government to people who were unseen and unknown, sitting in Government offices and running huge budgets. They were never elected, or able to be removed, by the people in whose name they acted and who paid their wages.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): As it happens, I voted to retain the Greater London council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the arguments for London are very different from those for the regions. Let us take the east midlands. People in Lincolnshire have no desire to be run by Leicester. Does he accept that the arguments for London are quite different from those for elsewhere in the country?

Mr. Hughes: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. As I recollect, he was a member of the GLC some time ago in his pre-Lincolnshire life.
London is different for two reasons: it is a capital city, and it has a history of regional government. My party has been absolutely clear that, although it believes that the powers exercised in his part of the world in, for example, the health service, which is controversial in Lincolnshire, by officials in the regional outpost of the NHS should be exercised by democratically elected people, none the less, regional government should not go ahead in Lincolnshire without the authority and approbation of the people—not least because it is one of those counties that does not naturally belong in a region as easily as some.
This week there was a lobby for the north led by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell). Perhaps people in the north want regional government more acutely and more urgently. There are the boundaries of the south-west, Cornwall and the north-east. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. London therefore rightfully comes first.
The Liberal Democrats are proud that, before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the then right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) came to an agreement that there should be a programme of regional government. The Cook-Maclennan joint consultative committee was set up by the two party leaders—it was not easy in negotiation—and concluded:
Both parties endorse the establishment of an elected authority for London, with the consent of the people of London in a referendum, which would act as a powerful voice for the capital and work with the boroughs and other organisations in London.
Then came the point on which the two parties differed. The Labour party also proposed an elected mayor for London. We acknowledge—and did so then—that there is a difference of view about one of the key aspects. For us, today's debate is about the package; what proposal will be put to the electorate in May next year.
The Liberal Democrats are strong believers in real devolution from Whitehall to the regions. The issue for us is not about local government giving up powers. In my book, local government should hold the powers it has—although I have arguments about its structure. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and others prompt me to say that the issue is about taking power from civil servants and central Government and giving it to elected people at a regional level.
My hon. Friends and I are clear that, above all in London—the arguments are overwhelming—regional government needs to be fairly elected; for without that, it will not be seen to be clearly representative. If we end up with an electoral system or an elected assembly which could, for example, mean that the government of London was run by a minority political view, we risk the authority's abolition in a very short time.
My hon. Friends and I are strong in the view—we are different from the Government in this respect—that the authority should have tax-varying powers. We do not back off from that; we think that that is proper. Tax raised from London taxpayers goes into a national kitty. It is allocated by central Government to the regions, and spent on services in the regions. We hope that, in time, taxes raised from Londoners for services given to Londoners should be decided by Londoners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That does not necessarily mean—before Conservative Members say it does—a penny extra in taxes.

Mr. Forth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: It does not. The right hon. Gentleman must know that, as a matter of logic and honesty. If we give some of the central Government administration to regional government and give the power to collect money from the region, the total could be exactly the same. Indeed, the cost might go down. Perhaps regional government is more efficient than central Government.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? Liberal Democrat spokesmen have traditionally argued that a small local supplement on income tax would be necessary to fund regional government. In the case of London, are the Liberal Democrats flying in the face of

all those previous statements and saying something quite new? What are we supposed to believe—what they say on the hustings or what they say in the House?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me that I promised him a copy of our proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will help by giving them to him now, so that he can read the full monty and not have to hear a summary from me. There is plenty of time to read them before the Committee sits again. I apologise for not giving him the proposals earlier.
There are a variety of ways in which we can collect money for London, but we believe, as the Government argue—

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The amendments are nothing to do with collecting money or raising taxes. He must stick to the subject of the amendments that he has tabled.

Mr. Hughes: I was distracted, as you saw, Mr. Martin, by the intervention of the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I accept your rebuke, and return to the straight and narrow, as always.
The central matter of the debate is whether we have a mayor elected from a London-wide assembly and accountable to it, or whether we have a directly elected mayor. Our amendments relate both to the clause and the schedule. We Liberal Democrats are not in favour of a take-it-or-leave-it proposal. We are in favour of posing the questions to the electorate, but we are not in favour of denying the electorate the right to give answers.
The Government are proposing that, in theory, Parliament has a chance to alter their proposals. But the electorate have no choice other than the one that the Government give them. I know that Ministers will say—rightly—that they went to the electorate with a proposal for a London-wide authority comprising an assembly and a mayor. Their manifesto never said that there would not be two questions—it did not say that there would be, either. We argue that the choice of the make-up, style and balance of power in London should be left to the electorate and not determined by the Government—even if they get their proposal through Parliament.
Conservatives propose a choice. They propose that the electorate will be asked either whether they want a directly elected mayor or whether they want a directly elected assembly.

Mr. Ottaway: It does not say "or".

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that their proposal does not say "or". Indeed, one could vote yes, yes, and there would be a directly elected mayor and an assembly. But one could also vote yes, no, as many Conservatives wish—we disagree—and have a mayor and nobody else. That is apart from the Conservatives' amendment that would create a cabal of local government leaders who would hold the directly elected mayor to account. We shall debate later whether local government leaders should do that job.
The Liberal Democrats ask two simple questions. The first is the logical first question: "Do you want a democratic government for London—yes or no?" If the


answer is yes, a second question would be: "What sort of government do you want?" We do not think that it is beyond the wit of Londoners to understand or answer that question.
One choice is government on the Westminster model, in which the primus inter pares—the Prime Minister—is chosen from among the elected Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister is accountable to this place, and loses his or her authority if this place takes it away. That is the model proposed for the Scottish Parliament. The alternative has never been tried in this country—a separate election, so that, whatever the view of the assembly of the day, the directly elected mayor remains in office, at least potentially, for the whole term, irrespective of democratic support.
We believe that there should be two questions. It could be argued that there should be more, but the essential difference is between those who want only one and those who want more than one.
The debate is simple. To their credit, the Conservatives have tabled proposals for two questions. We have also put forward two questions—different from the Conservatives' questions. The Government propose one question. The principle of two questions—"Are you in favour of a London government?" and "Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor or a non-directly elected mayor form of government?" —is more important than the exact drafting of our amendment or any other. I ask hon. Members to vote for our amendment, without necessarily signing up to the specific wording. We need to establish the principle of two questions.

Mr. Forth: rose

Mr. Hughes: Let me just finish. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman, who desperately wants to intervene again, that I am happy to negotiate with hon. Members from both sides to find the best wording for two questions that could establish whether people want London government and what sort of government they want.
That is detail, which can be sorted out before next Monday, when we conclude the Committee stage, between Committee and Report, or even between the consideration in this House and consideration in the other place. If we at least agree tonight that there should be two questions, we shall have made great progress, reflecting the differences of view in London, which will not otherwise be expressed.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has made the Committee a characteristically generous offer, which I am sure we all want to consider. Will he extend his generosity to an undertaking that it would be essential for the negotiating process that he envisages to provide for the questions—two or more, however many there may be—to allow Londoners to express a view on whether they want a mayor without an assembly, or an assembly without a mayor? That key option is missing from his formulation. If I want a mayor and no assembly, I cannot support his amendment.

Mr. Hughes: That is a valid point. Some Conservatives have taken that position. I would rather have discussions that left that as an option. I am in favour of opening the options to the voters, not closing them. That must be

the way forward. We are trying to achieve a system that Londoners say they want. I am happy to have a debate about the best form of government, on radio, on television or in the streets and boroughs of London.
No proposal ever made by women and men is perfect. No Government get it right all the time. I accept that many Labour Members believe that their proposal is the best available, although some have a different view.

Mr. Forth: There are not many of them here.

Mr. Hughes: That is true.
I know the pressure that Labour Members are under, but I ask them to vote for the amendment, not because they sign up to the words in detail, regarding them as unamendable, but on the basis that it would start a process of considering the options for more than one question. If we do that, we can start trying to find the best form of government. Even if some hon. Members do not want any form of London government, at least we have to give people the choice.

Mrs. Gorman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern to let Londoners have the biggest say. What level of turnout would he consider necessary to make the vote valid? We have already heard—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to get into that, because it has nothing to do with the amendments. There are other amendments on that. Perhaps the hon. Lady could intervene in those debates.

Mr. Hughes: I was with you that time, Mr. Martin. I was about to tell the hon. Lady that amendments on that were coming up later, and we could debate the matter then, if she was patient. Some of my hon. Friends are particularly ready for that debate, which may come on Monday, so we have time to prepare ourselves.
I sense that the mood of the House is not to spin matters out, but to put arguments in an orderly way. We may be able to conclude this debate and that on the schedule by the end of play today, so I shall not detain the House.
7.45 pm
One option is an assembly elected by the people under a fair process. That assembly would then elect its leader—the mayor—and the mayor would then choose the cabinet. That is what we want—just like the House of Commons. The alternative is a system that gives huge powers to the mayor, who has no necessary and direct accountability to the assembly.
I have given the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) one of my happily not extremely rare copies of our response, submitted in time to the Government, available to the wider public from Friday in Marsham street—sorry, from Eland house; that is a nicer building. It is also available to other hon. Members if they want it. It is called "Home Rule for London".
We set out clearly there our view that a cabinet headed by a mayor who is an assembly member provides the most responsive form of government—more responsive than a directly elected mayor. We are not saying that the idea of a directly elected mayor has no merit, but there are risks.


If one of my hon. Friends catches your eye later, Mr. Martin, I hope that we shall be able to elaborate on some of the risks.
Israel changed its voting system not many years ago. The Prime Minister is now directly elected, not elected by the Knesset. That is a model.

Mr. Livingstone: It is bleeding awful.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman gives a characteristically succinct view. I have never heard the Israeli electoral system commended for giving stable government.

Mr. Leigh: It is proportional.

Mr. Hughes: It is a proportional system, with such a low threshold that the parties splinter all over the place. Many of us do not argue for that.
A few places in the world, including the United States, have directly elected mayors. The mayor of New York was re-elected recently. However, not only is it not common in Britain—it is also very rare in Europe. Ministers try to hide the fact, but very few places in Europe have directly elected mayors.

Mr. Forth: So what?

Mr. Hughes: So nothing, other than the fact that it is an untried model. We believe that one reason why the rest of Europe has not gone down that road is that it gives too much power to one person and too little to the general body.
The powers of the mayor can be qualified. We propose that, if 90 per cent. of the assembly thought that the mayor had gone mad or was corrupt, they could vote him or her out. We also propose that, if 10 per cent. of the electorate of London thought that the mayor had clearly gone off the rails, they should be able to vote that mayor out. If the Government win the day and there is a directly elected mayor, we shall be keen to ensure a power of recall to deal with such problems.
There are also ways of unblocking logjams. If the assembly did not agree on a budget and the mayor took a different view, we propose that the mayor could call an election.
But these are not comfortable systems; they are systems that require the overturning of a huge constitutional boulder. It is surely more democratic that a whole load of us should be collectively responsible, and act collectively as people whom the electorate can influence. We are a collective assembly of elected representatives accountable to the people we serve.

Mr. Leigh: I recall that there was not much interest in the GLC until the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) managed to liven it up a bit. The advantage of a directly elected mayor is that it would generate at least some interest in the process. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about a re-created GLC which would result only in one huge yawn from most of the people of London.

Mr. Hughes: No one is suggesting a re-created GLC—but I do not accept the point about a lack of interest

anyway. There was plenty of interest in the last general election, just as there would be in a contest between two philosophies of how to run a capital city, led by groups of people with leaders putting differing views. If the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats each put their views, under declared leaders, just as the electorate warmed to that in sufficient numbers at the general election—between 70 and 75 per cent. voted in it—they would do the same in London.
There is, however, a danger to which the hon. Gentleman did not allude and which even the hon. Member for Brent, East may not now wish to defend. It should certainly not be permitted to change the leader the day after the election. If the Prime Minister leads his party into an election, the electorate requires a guarantee that he will be sitting in the biggest chair at the Cabinet table the next day.
The alternative is equally dangerous—I say that as one of the people who has featured on this problematic road. If a mayor is to be directly elected, most of the debate will concern not policy issues or the structure of local government but who the mayor will be. Will it be Jeffrey Archer; will it be Ken Livingstone; will it be Richard Branson or one of the Spice Girls? [HON. MEMBERS: "Or Simon Hughes?"] Or me.
Yet that is not the most important question. The most important question is: what will the elected person do? What will his policies be? So the electorate should be given the chance to decide whether they want an election dominated by a personality contest or one dominated by debates on the issues. If we fight the election in teams—that does not rule out independents taking part—we will get an election about politics and policies, not about personalities.
We are asking the Committee to vote to allow the electorate of London to decide whether it wants the leadership to be accountable to the assembly or to be divorced from that accountability. The latter would be dangerous and novel, not to mention unwise. We have hitherto been relatively well served by our parliamentary system, and by the prime ministerial system of democracy. We think that that system should be tried, to begin with, in London too.

Sir Norman Fowler: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, this is one of the most important questions of these debates. There was a great deal in his remarks with which I fundamentally disagreed—on regional government, tax-raising powers and proportional representation—but luckily, as all that was out of order, I need not detain the House by responding to it. Fortunately, the one part of his speech that was in order was also the part that I agreed with—the need for two questions in the referendum.
The fact is that, outside the ranks of the Government, very few support the proposition that there be just one question for the people of London. There is a consensus around the idea that there are two issues—possibly more, but at least two. They are: should we have a directly elected mayor; and should we have a directly elected assembly? My party supports a directly elected mayor, as I said on Second Reading and before, but we are not in favour of a directly elected assembly.
We want two questions, in which view we are supported by a range of people and newspapers. The Times, speaking of the Minister's paper, said:


Two distinct issues require two different questions".
The Daily Telegraph takes a similar view. The Liberal Democrats adopt a view different from ours as regards the policy, but they argue strongly for two questions. I venture to suggest that some Labour Back Benchers have also argued for two questions. In due course, the Committee will be fascinated to hear what the hon. Member for Brent, East has to say. It would have been fascinating to hear what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) had to say—had he been here.
There are others who support the Government's proposals but who also want a two-question referendum. Consider The Guardian's editorial, which the Minister—even on his own admission, I think—so misleadingly quoted on Second Reading. He broke his quotation in mid-sentence, thereby entirely changing the meaning. The quotation goes:
Mr. Raynsford dismisses the Conservative suggestion that the mayor could answer to the current 33 London boroughs as a recipe for disaster. Any mayor could simply buy off the boroughs by chucking goodies their way, bringing US-style pork barrel politics to the capital. The Minister is right" —
at that point, the Minister broke off in mid-sentence, though the rest of it reads—
but he should make that argument in a campaign".
The editorial continues:
The Government's package deal allows no room for those who want a mayor but no assembly or those who want an assembly but no mayor. We subscribe to neither view, but to deny them any expression on the ballot seems peculiar. After all, the whole point of a referendum is to allow all the people their say.
That is what the Minister chose to use to support his case.
It is not just opponents of the Government's position who want two questions: it is also their supporters. This all reveals an amazing lack of confidence in the Minister's and the Government's case. They do not seem sure enough of their own proposition to put it to the public in London. The Labour manifesto said that the purpose of the referendum was "to confirm public demand". How is that possible if the public are not allowed to express their views?
The Government know that there is public support for a mayor, but not nearly so much support for an assembly—

Mr. Raynsford: What is the evidence for that?

Sir Norman Fowler: I hope that the Minister will accept our suggestion, and allow the public to decide. Why will he not allow the public to decide?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman claims that there is evidence of support for a mayor but not for an assembly. Perhaps he could give the House that evidence. Perhaps he will tell us where that evidence is in terms of public opinion, not selective newspaper quotations.

Sir Norman Fowler: These are newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph. [Interruption.]

8 pm

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister cannot behave like this in Committee.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister is getting terribly excited and going red in the face. He is blustering.

Anyone would think that he was super-sensitive on the issue. Why is the Minister so sensitive and blustering? Why is he going so red in the face? Why is he smiling in that extraordinary way which indicates that he is on the defensive? Is it that the Minister knows perfectly well that he has a lousy case, which, so far, he has not done very well in defending, and he knows that he must defend it again?

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister should talk about public opinion? I thought that the whole purpose of the referendum was that it should be a sounding of public opinion. Otherwise, we need not have one. The Minister can go away and look at his opinion polls and his crystal ball, consult his colleagues, and get on with it. I thought that the referendum was the consultation process with the electorate.

Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend misunderstands the Government's purpose. The purpose of their referendum is not to find out what the public think. What the Government want is some sort of rubber stamp on the proposal that they are making. That is the whole point. That is why the Minister gets so indignant. That is why he is so sensitive. That is why he goes so red every time the issue comes up. It is the most revealing display that I have seen since the Deputy Prime Minister lost his temper on a particular issue.

Mr. Pickles: My right hon. Friend is being quite unkind to the Minister. The Minister is a sensitive man. I suspect that he secretly agrees with my right hon. Friend, but there are others in the Government preventing him from following his natural inclinations.

Sir Norman Fowler: I had better leave the Minister to compose himself, because at some stage he will have to respond to the debate.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way for the Minister to help himself, since he wants the evidence, would be to have the two questions?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is rather what I have been saying. That is the whole point of what I am saying, and what others have been saying as well. What I find so extraordinary about the Minister's attitude is that it is not always firm opponents of the Minister who are saying this. The Guardian is on the Minister's side. It is one of the few papers which thinks that the Minister is right. But leave that to one side; he has some supporters. But The Guardian is then asking why the Minister does not put it to the public. That remains the question. Why does not he put it to the public?
Some hon. Members see this in terms of there being public support for a mayor but not for an assembly; and there is even less support for what some Labour Members want, which is a return, step by step, to the GLC. Conservative Members favour a directly elected mayor, but we would have an assembly made up of borough leaders. We favour that, because a mayor would have to work with the boroughs. There is no question about that.
We reject the argument that that will simply lead to conflict. Our fundamental belief is that the structure suggested by the Minister has conflict built into it at every


stage—and not only conflict, but layer after layer of local government. That lies at the heart of why we propose a two-question referendum.
It is important that we remember what the Government are proposing. They propose a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly, a regional development agency for London and a government office for London; and then we get to the stage of 32 borough leaders. Another piece of legislation coming in on the side, which the Minister might care to talk about at some stage, is the innovation Bill, which I understand will be introduced in another place, which will allow a directly elected mayor for boroughs as well. For the sake of argument, there could be a borough directly elected mayor.
One does not have to be a reader of The Times  or a paid-up member of the Conservative party to think that that process is getting out of hand. But even if the Minister fundamentally disagrees with what I say, I should have thought that it was common ground that there is a case to be debated. What we find so offensive is that the Minister and the Government simply will not answer that case. They simply will not approach that case and take it to the public.
If ever there was inbuilt conflict, it is in the system that the Government propose. As the Minister knows, already, in the question that the Government are asking, they have revealed some of their internal uncertainty. At one stage, earlier in October, the question on the ballot paper was going to be: "Are you in favour of the Government's proposals for a greater London authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor?"
When the Bill is published, the order is reversed, and the mayor comes before the assembly. I would have loved to be at the Cabinet Committee which decided that order. With any other Government, I concede that it would be a matter of no consequence, but with this Government one can just see the spin doctors debating which should come first. Obviously, their aim is that the popular idea of the mayor should take the assembly with it.
It takes no great powers of forecast to know what the next step will be if we have an elected assembly. The assembly will want more powers. There is no question about that. Whenever the Minister reveals what powers the assembly will have—we should remind him that it is not the White Paper that sets that down, but, as has been said, the Act of Parliament—those elected members will want greater and greater power. They will not be satisfied with an advisory role. They will argue that they are democratically elected, and will have an absolute and complete right to that.
Anyone who has been in government knows that, if powers go to the assembly, they will not be given up by the Government. The one thing that I did learn during 10 years in government is that getting powers out of Departments is extraordinarily difficult. Government will devolve powers from other organisations, but when it comes to themselves, there is turf battle after turf battle. Therefore, the powers will come from the boroughs. That is the fundamental importance of the Bill.
That is the issue that stands behind the Opposition's demand for two questions. Londoners should be able to say whether they want to put their future more and more in the hands of an intermediate regional assembly, or to

strengthen the borough council system which is closest to the public. We should be aiming not for a new elected assembly but for a mayor working with the boroughs. But when it comes to it, what is striking about the debate is the Government's lack of confidence in their arguments. They talk about reaching agreement and about consensus, but they are not interested in either.
The Opposition's amendment simply divides into two the single question that the Government propose. If I may say so gently to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, that has the advantage of clarity over the slightly elongated and prolonged question in the Liberal Democrats' amendment—certainly over the second question. As I have made clear, there are several things, such as regional government, with which we simply do not agree. We do, however, support the principle of having two questions.
As they stand, the Bill and the referendum will not give the public the right to have their say on the structure of local government in London. They are being denied a choice, and told that they cannot express a view. We believe that Londoners should be given the opportunity to judge for themselves whether London needs both a mayor and a directly elected assembly. That is why we shall support any amendment that gives them that choice, and asks Londoners two questions in the referendum.

Mr. Livingstone: I suppose that I should start by declaring an interest, although I am not certain that I shall eventually have an interest—or whether I shall be allowed to have an interest—in the post under consideration. Being endorsed by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) has not helped in any way, but my recollection of his diaries is that there will be a few good meals and the odd glass of good wine going around if he is interested in becoming my campaign manager.
I also have to say that I cannot support my party in the Lobby tonight because I have not heard a convincing argument to satisfy me and enable me to do so. I would, in the more liberal times that prevailed in my party before the election, have joined the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby in support of their amendment, which comes closest to my own views; but, as Labour Members know, shortly before the election, the standing orders of the Labour party were changed so that to vote against a Labour Government is now an offence against those standing orders and leads to withdrawal of the Whip and debarment from further candidature. One might think that an overreaction, given that we have the largest majority since 1935, but it might indicate that we did not expect to win so well.
I would have been prepared to be persuaded on the question before us if I had heard any convincing argument about why we need a separately elected mayor—why we are going to turn our backs on the best part of 1,000 years of painfully slowly constructed parliamentary tradition and run maniacally in the direction of a presidential system—but I have been unpersuaded of the case throughout, despite listening carefully in my office to the debate on Second Reading.
I did not vote against the Bill's Second Reading because it would have been madness to throw the whole Bill out and end up with nothing, but because I had not quite grasped the Government's argument I read Hansard


twice—the whole debate, every speech. I have to say that that was a hardship: it took several hours. I wanted to pin down the Government's detailed arguments in favour of a separately elected mayor and against the Liberal amendment, so I went through the debate and extracted all those arguments. Throughout the debate, Ministers said, "I am coming to that point shortly," so they will be glad to learn that I have analysed their argument, sentence by sentence.
The longest speech in support of a separately elected mayor and against the amendment came from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. She said:
London needs the strategic leadership that can be provided only by a mayor who is directly elected by and speaks for the people, and who is capable of bringing all of London together. It also needs an assembly capable of scrutinising, questioning and holding the mayor to democratic account, creating a proper balance of accountability, but also capable of advising the mayor and contributing ideas and expertise in regular dialogue.
I can see nothing in that statement that cannot be fulfilled by the leader of a group, whether that person is called a mayor or a leader, in a normal parliamentary system. I agree with Ministers that an independently elected mayor without any assembly or check would be a nightmare and open the way for the most appalling abuse of power, so I do not find myself at all attracted by the Conservative amendment.
My hon. Friend the Minister reached the crunch point when she said:
The two proposals are inseparable.
She did not say why. She continued:
Neither on its own would provide the mix of leadership and accountability that London needs. That was stressed in almost all the contributions of Labour Members."— [Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 671.]
Thus stirred by my hon. Friend's words, I went back and read all of the Labour Members' contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said:
We can have a hung Parliament or a hung council; we cannot have a hung president"—
that depends on how unpopular he gets with the public—
or a hung mayor—at least not in the electoral sense.
He went on:
An assembly without a mayor, as the Liberal Democrats advocate, is a recipe for inertia."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 603.]
That is one sentence in support of the Government's position.
8.15 pm
We then come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who said:
I do not see the creation of an elected mayor and a Greater London assembly as a recipe for conflict, and most of the points made on that have been clichés.
Tell that to the American people who watched Clinton and Congress locked in mortal combat over a Budget; tell it to the hundreds of thousands of American civil servants who did not get paid, from the Defence Secretary to the park keepers at collecting tills at the gates of the national parks. Such deadlock is an endemic feature of the American system—it happened three times in California between the governor and the assembly and I am certain

that it has happened on many other occasions. That system is a recipe for deadlock and simply saying that it will not be will not make it not so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East went on to state:
Similarly, we are told that a mayor will open things up to corruption. Why should that be the case any more than it is the case with the leader of a council in whom so much is vested?"—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 618.]
I will tell him why. There is corruption—albeit not on the scale seen in America, which dwarfs anything we have here—but corruption is minimised because the leader of a council is like the Prime Minister in that his own party is scrutinising him every bit as much as the opposition. As leader of the Greater London council I never had any doubt that there were another 91 members of the council watching my every move. Labour members watched with the greatest dedication and concentration because, if they could catch me with my hand in the till, one of them might get my job. That is a powerful discipline. A separately elected mayor who is able to remain at a distance from the assembly and who receives a salary rumoured to be £100,000 will not suffer the same scrutiny from members of the assembly who are trying to get by on a loss of earnings allowance.
Next, I read the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). She said:
It will be the different, but complementary, roles of the mayor and the Greater London authority that will deliver those aims;"—
achieving our policies for London—
and it is because those roles are so complementary that it is necessary that we put a single, simple question to Londoners.
Unfortunately, her contribution in support of the Government was undermined when she went on to say:
Without a single voice for London, we cannot tackle those problems effectively."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 637–38.]
We are not getting a single voice for London—we are getting two competing voices, locked into an institutionalised conflict.
To round off matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) rose and said that he had seen such a system at work. He said:
Such a system of checks and balances works; I have seen it working in Seattle, one of the most prosperous and fastest-expanding but civilised cities on this earth."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 652–531
I had the good fortune to go to Seattle for my holiday this year. No one would deny that it is a wonderful city, but there is the small matter of billions of dollars of investment from Asia—money out of Hong Kong—helping to boost the local economy. Nothing in Seattle's prosperity is inherently dependent on the structure of its government; it is especially well located for development on the Pacific rim.
That was it—in an entire day's debate, that was the entire Back-Bench support for the Government's proposition. Pretty weedy, is it not? I do not want to undermine my own Front Benchers, so I have to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—my dear old friend—supported the Government in an earlier debate. I remember clearly that he also uttered one sentence in support of the concept: when I questioned him on why we should not apply it nationally and have a directly elected Prime Minister, he replied:


it is horses for courses."—[Official Report, 6 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 726.]
When we marshal the arguments that the Labour party has mobilised behind a separately elected mayor—one sentence from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, two from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, one from my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, one from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and one earlier this summer from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham—it is not exactly overwhelming; it makes six sentences in support.

Mr. Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recalling earlier and distinguished contributions by the hon. Member for Streatham, but I feel slightly hurt than in his careful analysis of the Second Reading debate he has omitted my observation, in an intervention, about the benefits of an elected mayor.
I pointed out that, in the United States, the evidence is that elections for mayors have, almost without exception, high turnouts—normally over 50 per cent. —which is noticeable in a country that is notorious for low turnouts in elections of all descriptions; and it is higher than those for most local elections in this country. The public's involvement in local politics and the consequent democratic renewal is a powerful argument for an elected mayor, and my hon. Friend should take it into account.

Mr. Livingstone: I take it into account, but I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I demolish it. There is a better turnout for the election of American mayors because they have real powers. American mayors run the police force and the health service in their local areas. That is a major job. In terms of their spending impact on the general public, mayors spend more than the governor or the President. If we created an assembly for London without a mayor and we gave it those major powers, I bet our turnouts would be much higher. People would say the members of the assembly were responsible for tackling crime in London. If the assembly were given the power, it would get the turnout.
The average American I have bumped into is never deeply consumed by the structures of government, and I have never been involved in any great debates on my holidays there about the wonders of the American structure of government. The Americans get involved in mayoral elections because mayors have real power. We have a low turnout in Britain because councils are now bound hand and foot by central Government. Councils are given budgets and left to decide what to cut, and that is why interest in local elections is declining.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The turnout for the American presidential election, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is normally about 50 per cent. I argue that that is because all the personality, all the money and all the personal campaigning do not persuade people about policies and real commitments. When it is merely a question of failed individuals fighting each other, the election becomes a turn-off not a turn-on.

Mr. Livingstone: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Anything that increases the

personality conflicts in politics will alienate the British public. They are sick and tired of the slanging match that sets up individuals against each other—cut off from parties, programmes and principles. A politician who says only, "Vote for me, because I am better than he is, and he is a crook," will not engage the enthusiasm of the British people.

Mr. Leigh: What was the turnout in the last GLC election?

Mr. Livingstone: The turnout was 44 per cent., which is not dramatically worse than the figures for mayoral elections. Mind you, Andrew McIntosh had a wonderful personality.
The Minister for London and Construction is the man responsible for steering this great constitutional change through the House. I thought that I could rely on him, with his sharp and dry mind, to focus on the real arguments. Certainly his Second Reading speech contained some interesting points. In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) he said:
go to New York, to see how that city has tackled the crime problem". —[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 592.]
The crime rate has gone down in New York because the mayor has hired 7,000 new police officers. The crime rate could be brought down in London if another 7,000 police officers were hired. I hope that that comment from the Minister means that he will give the new, powerful mayor the power to raise taxes to hire extra police officers to make an impact. That is the logic of his argument.
Earlier in the Minister's speech, I found the kernel of the Government's ideological support for their position. The Minister managed to get it down to two sentences—new Labour, very concise. We must remember that the Minister had built up to this point and all the way through his speech he kept saying that he was coming to it. He said:
A mayor alone, without an assembly, would wield too much power. An assembly alone, without a mayor, would not give London the focus and leadership that it so desperately needs."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 590.]
Is that the Government's justification for their proposal? I am prepared to give way to the Minister if he cares to intervene with some more reasons, but I fear that that is it—because that was what was in our manifesto. The Minister obviously thinks that it is an important point because it was repeated word for word in his article in The House Magazine this week, but we have been sold on a gimmick. Such gimmickry has dominated so much of the politics of the Labour party in the past few years. An idea hatches in Millbank tower, is passed up through the spin doctors, goes down well with a focus group in Chipping Sodbury, and suddenly we are all committed to the damn thing.
There has been no debate in the Labour party. I went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party, at which we discussed the proposal that appears in the Liberal Democrats' amendment. The Greater London Labour party assembled in conference and split into working groups to discuss whether we should have a separately elected mayor. The most crowded working group was the one that discussed the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. Nine


out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor, but we were told, "You have got to have it because it was in the manifesto."
No one can mobilise any more arguments for it than the Minister can. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred to Labour's new legions as the terracotta army. That is unfair, because when you get close you can hear them all mumbling, "Its in the manifesto, it's in the manifesto." It's being in the manifesto does not justify a major constitutional change. I would like some more substance before we launch into a new method of government for which we have no background and which, looking at America, does not seem to be more effective.
As I have said, the Minister repeated his arguments in his article "A New Mayor for a New Millennium", but the reality is that the case has not been made. Recently, an opinion poll showed, for the first time, that a majority of Londoners were more in favour of a mayor than of an assembly. A head of steam is building up, engineered by the media, but the argument did not persuade the Greater London Labour party delegates who sat and discussed it. We sat in the working group and we proposed a vote on the matter. We were told that we could not have a vote, but demand was overwhelming. The result was nine to one against a separately elected mayor.
When the working party reported to the conference, we were forbidden to have a vote. That is not very democratic, when people are being consulted. Why could we not have a vote? Because those in charge knew that the Labour party leadership would face the embarrassment of the Greater London Labour party rejecting its proposal by nine to one. It is an absolute scandal that policy can be created like that. The policy has not arisen as a result of any detailed consultation with Labour party members in the House or in London.
Before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—he is a dear friend and I love him deeply—had to come along and browbeat the London Labour Members of Parliament and then went off to browbeat the London borough leaders who were meeting in caucus. He said that we had to go along with the policy because the leader wanted it and we did not want a big upset before the election. The party has gone along with the policy because we do not want to rock the boat, but before we vote for a system that no one has been able to persuade us will work, we should rock the boat.
I shall rock the boat a little more and say that we should trust Londoners. The Liberal Democrats' proposal would give Londoners a clear choice. If we were prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshal their arguments and we could challenge them. If Ministers could persuade Londoners, Ministers would get their way, but they do not trust Londoners, which is why they will not be given a choice. Londoners will be told, "Take it or leave it." That is insulting to Londoners. We have just had a referendum in Scotland and we allowed the people to have two votes to decide about tax policy, but Londoners can have only one option.
Londoners are told that they cannot have the assembly without the mayor. Why not? Is it because we are frightened that we might re-create the GLC? Is that the fear of Ministers as much as it is the fear of the

Conservatives? I am not ashamed of the role of the GLC. The record of county hall under the GLC and the London county council shows huge achievements for London. I do not expect everyone to agree with that, but we should not deny Londoners the chance to decide what system of government they want. I am deeply ashamed of the way my party has proceeded tonight, because it is an offence to Londoners and an insult to their intelligence.
I do not believe for one minute that those who argue for a presidential system have demonstrated any real basis for proceeding with it. They do not have the right to expect the support of the House and they will not get my support until they can marshal much better arguments than the half dozen scrappy, monotonously repetitive sentences that they have been able to marshall so far.

Mr. Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow that speech from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), not least because he tackled some serious questions and managed to do so in an amusing way. The truth of his comments about the inability of the House and the people of London to address an important constitutional change will make Labour Members feel deeply ashamed when they read Hansard in years to come.
The debate is encapsulated in a couple of sentences spoken by the Minister for Transport in London, on Second Reading. She said:
This Government were elected on a manifesto promise to bring back democratic government to our capital. With the approval of the people of London, that is what we shall undoubtedly do."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 670.]
The hard truth is that that is exactly what the people of London will not get an opportunity to decide, because it has already been decided, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) observed, by the terracotta army saying, "It is in the manifesto."
Why cannot we have two questions? I believe that there is a case for a mayor for London, who could act as a catalyst, as do mayors in other cities. I do not believe that a strategic authority is necessary. The difference between the Minister and me is that I am prepared to argue the point in public and I am prepared to allow the people of London to decide—to pass judgment on whether I am right or the Minister is right.
The hon. Member for Brent, East said that Scotland could cope with two questions, so why cannot the people of London cope with two questions? We have had an opportunity to have a good look at the Labour manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman consults it again, he will see that Scotland and in London are dealt with on exactly the same basis. There is no suggestion in the manifesto that there will be two questions for Scotland and only one question on a Greater London authority.
We were promised on Second Reading that we would be given cogent arguments to demonstrate why it would be impossible to have a mayor without a strategic authority. None came. All we got was the strange mantra, "We won the election. We have a big majority. Our Back Benchers will support us, because if they do not, they will be thrown out of the parliamentary party and deselected. Therefore, we are right."
A large majority does not remove the obligation to explain and to justify one's actions. The mere fact that there are more Labour Members than Opposition Members does not release the Minister from giving us a reason for the Government's position.
We are faced with three propositions: a proposition from Conservative Members that we should have a directly elected mayor; a proposition from the Liberal Democrats that we should have a strategic authority, from which a mayor might be elected; and a proposition from Labour Members that we should have both.
I do not suggest that we are right and everyone else is wrong; I suggest that we have an arguable case that deserves to be put to the people of London. Why be so hesitant? If the Government are so convinced by the arguments and so sure that our proposition will not work, let the people of London decide. It is not such a difficult issue.
Ultimately, Parliament decides in a democratic society. If we start to have referendums regularly—I am not entirely against the idea of referendums and I am attracted by some of what I have seen in the United States, in circumstances where there is a series of propositions to be decided—we must give the public a right to arrive at a judgment. If we do not ask a clear question, we will not get a clear result. The process is worthless unless the people have a right to decide.
People can vote yes in the referendum if they are in favour of a mayor, if they are in favour of a strategic authority or if they are in favour of both. They can vote no only if they are opposed to all three propositions.
We heard quotations from the Minister about the views of Londoners and about opinion polls and focus groups. He told us that the Government had looked into the matter carefully. We are used to seeing sham polls during election campaigns, suggesting that certain candidates have more support than others. It is likely that the polling organisations have begun to examine in detail the questions that they ask.
We know that the Minister has given much thought to the questions. He said on Second Reading, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman):
The question is one on which we have taken considerable advice, and we have tried to ensure that it is framed so as to be as comprehensible as possible to the widest range of Londoners. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there can be confusion with the framing of questions, and if the electorate are not clear there will not be a satisfactory outcome."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 593.]
The phrase "not…a satisfactory outcome" is rather ominous and sinister. The Minister is saying, in effect, that the Government are prepared to put a question to Londoners provided that Londoners say yes, but the Government are not prepared to put a question that allows the possibility of Londoners saying no.
We have some experience of that. Some will recall that, shortly before the last election, the late Sir James Goldsmith approached one of the polling organisations—I think it was MORI, but I stand to be corrected—because he wanted to put down a question to be asked in an opinion poll that would have given a false reading of the support that he was receiving. The polling organisation rightly refused, because its integrity was on the line.
The question before us would not pass muster through a respectable polling organisation. Two propositions are put in a single question. That is no way to find out from the London public what they want. The Minister says that the majority of people support his ideas. Let him put that to the ultimate test-a referendum that should give him two resounding yes votes. Unless he is prepared to do that, there remains a great air of mistrust over the entire debate.

Mr. Edward Davey: It was a pleasure earlier this evening to listen to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who made a powerful case against a directly elected mayor. It is a shame that the Labour party's illiberal standing orders do not allow him to join us, the Liberal Democrats, in the Lobby when the Division takes place. The hon. Gentleman would be welcome there.
I shall explain why we, the Liberal Democrats, wish to argue for a two-question referendum so as to allow the people of London to choose the form of government that will govern them. I shall explain why we believe that we should trust the people of London to make that choice.
The hon. Member for Brent, East said that the arguments for a directly elected mayor are very weak. The arguments for a one-question referendum are even weaker. The Government have justified offering only a one-question referendum—a take-it-or-leave-it referendum—by saying that they have a mandate as a result of the general election. They have elaborated on that on Second Reading and on other occasions. They say that the Labour party's election manifesto was a package and that it has to be presented as a whole. That is the package of the mayor, the assembly and the referendum.
Let us examine that argument. Elsewhere in the Labour party's manifesto, there are other packages. How are the Government matching up in putting those into practice? They will tell us that they had a mandate to ban tobacco advertising. That was to apply, for example, to cricket, darts and formula one motor racing. The Government have unpacked that mandate and promise and broken them. It seems that they felt fairly happy in doing so.
Why cannot the Government unpackage the London proposals? Why cannot they revisit the Labour party's manifesto and say that the mandate is flexible? The Government should take care when they rely on the mandate argument. Indeed, mandate arguments are often flawed; they are devices behind which Governments can hide. Parties that believe that a majority in the House gives them a mandate for detailed policy proposals are, in my view, guilty of arrogance.
I accept that a mandate was achieved for the principle of democratic governance for London. My colleagues and I put that to the electorate and together we certainly achieved a large majority for the proposal. That was not in any way a mandate for a directly elected mayor.
It is surprising that the Government have not learned from their lessons when in Opposition. The previous Government abolished the Greater London council on the basis of one line in the Conservative party's manifesto in the 1983 general election. There are many other examples of the previous Government driving incredibly unpopular policies through the House on the basis that they had a mandate.
We all know that, when voters go into polling booths, the vast majority of them have not read every word or sentence in our parties' manifestos. It is dangerous and


arrogant to suggest that a vote on one day gives a party when in Government a mandate to implement all of its policies with every i and every t. It is a question of trust. If the Government showed that they were prepared to put trust in the people, they would legitimise the principle of democratic government in London to a far greater extent.
The history of government in London shows how unstable it has been. There have been many structures of government over the past 100 years. We started with the London county council. We heard earlier, in an intervention from the hon. Member for Brent, East, that, 10 years after the then Tory Government created the LCC, they were trying to get rid of it. Eventually, it was abolished, to be replaced by the GLC, which in turn was abolished. It is important that, in introducing a new London government, we ensure that it has much greater legitimacy than its predecessors so that we do not continue chopping and changing and reinventing the wheel every two or three decades.
The only way in which we shall achieve full legitimacy for the new London government is by giving the voters a choice. That choice will strengthen the future London government so that another Government presiding in this place 20 or 30 years down the line will not feel so able to abolish or reform London government or to gerrymander the results of elections for that government.
I do not understand why the Government lack confidence in these matters.

Mr. Raynsford: We do not.

Mr. Davey: If that is so, they should accept the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Surely the point of a referendum is to introduce a much more detailed mandate on a policy proposal. Why not let the voters come to decisions on all aspects of the Government's policy proposals and not merely on the package as a whole? Let the Government unpack their proposals and give the people of London a proper chance to register their voice. What would the people decide if the options were open to them? The answer is that we do not know.
On the basis of the amendments, three potential options would be open to the people. We do not know for which they would opt but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that they would not support the Government's current proposal. They would not back the proposed US-style system of a separately elected mayor and assembly. I feel that, as the details of the Government's proposals are more widely known, support for them will decrease.
The problem with a directly elected mayor is that one person can never represent the range of views that are contained in a city such as London—a city with such a varied range of cultures, such a wide variety of socio-economic groups, and, indeed, voting patterns. With debate, with choice, I believe that people would see that problem.
A separately elected mayor with a separate mandate from that of the assembly can never be fully accountable to it. He or she would always be able to point to his or her separate mandate and ignore the views of the assembly. Vast powers would be placed in the hands of one person, who could be held to account only every four years. Such a concentration of power causes genuine

concern as the details of the Government's proposals are more widely debated. That is why one question is not enough. A take-it-or-leave-it question is characteristic of eastern Europe before the wall came down—a sort of Albanian referendum, or, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) argued earlier, a rubber stamp referendum. It does not offer choice.
8.45 pm
It is even more astonishing that, after widespread consultation, the Government are still sticking to their one-question proposal. We have not yet had the chance to read the replies to the consultation; we shall do so with great interest. When we have spoken informally to people who replied to the consultation, they have expressed concerns about the mayor, as have many London local authorities and London-wide organisations, for example London Youth Matters. They believe that an all-powerful mayor would leave them stranded from the democratic process, because they might not have access to his or her office, where all the power would be concentrated.
The Green Paper gives some idea of how powerful the mayor will be. We are told that the mayor will set the strategic objective for London; that he or she will have certain powers of appointment; that he or she will speak up for London, increase competitiveness, attract investment and push forward major civic projects. We are told in particular that he or she will propose budgetary and strategic plans. The fact that huge financial power will be in one individual's hands sets a very worrying precedent.
The Spice Girls might not have been quite so popular over the past few months—

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Who?

Mr. Davey: The Spice Girls. I believe that my hon. Friend had not heard of the Spice Girls until very recently.
If the Spice Girls suddenly became more popular, perhaps Baby Spice or Mel B would stand for election. The huge budget for the whole of our capital could be decided and plans could be put forward by Mel B, and the assembly would not have the power to ensure that she spent the money wisely. Surely it makes much more sense that the assembly has power over the budget.
I hope that the Government will think again and allow a two-question referendum in the form that we propose. If they have enough faith in their arguments, they will, and Londoners will respect them for it. However, if the Government continue to distrust the people of London to choose the form of government most appropriate for them, they risk setting up a constitutional structure of conflict and insecurity, one that may not stand the test of time and one that could potentially be a disaster.
I urge Ministers to use the referendum to get a real mandate for democratic government for London and give the new authority real and lasting legitimacy.

Mr. Forth: The debate has surely illustrated—better than anything that one could have anticipated—the hazards of referendums as a mechanism for policy making. To those who are sceptical about referendums, that comes as no surprise but, even to the enthusiasts, for this way of seeking political decisions, it should have


become pretty obvious by now that, at least, it is unsatisfactory, and, at worst, it can be very dangerous. We need only glance at the amendment paper and note the wording of the proposals that have been set before the Committee to gather very quickly that all this has the potential to go very wrong.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a very generous offer earlier, but, on reflection, I am not sure how it can be followed through. I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying that, although his wording might not be ideal, if we could go along with it—or something like it—we could all chat among ourselves afterwards and, in some way, return to the matter later. I doubt that that is the case in procedural terms, but it shows that, even after giving all the thought that I suspect the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends gave to the matter, and even after they came up with the rather convoluted formula that is offered to us in the amendment, the hon. Gentleman—albeit in a spirit of flexibility—is saying, "Well, if that does not ask quite the right question, I would be prepared to talk about something that does." In fact, as the hon. Gentleman conceded to me at the time, his question fails to offer a key option to the people of London—an option that must surely be available to them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree that a variety of options are available. What we must do first is escape from the idea that there is only one option. Once we have broken out of that cell, we must consider what options are serious runners. I would say that the option presented by the Tories—the option of having only a mayor—is worth considering.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but, in my current greedy mood, I will press him and see whether I can carry him a little further down that road. He conceded what to many of us is a very important point. The whole argument revolves around that point, does it not? Let us put aside for a moment the question whether we think any of this is a good idea—whether it is necessary, or whether, as one of my hon. Friends suggested earlier, there should be an option on the referendum voting form called "None of the above".
I pose that as semi-serious suggestion. Why are we forced to say one thing or the other? Many people may want to turn out and cast their vote rather than staying at home and saying, "I do not want any of this, thank you very much. I do not think it is necessary." Those people may think—as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said so eloquently—that it could be damaging, or that it would not work. That may be a question that people would want to consider; but there are others, are there not?
The difficulty underlying the proposals revolves around the inadequacy of the process of asking questions involving very complicated issues in a simple form. Among the issues that we are considering, or asking the electorate to consider, is not just the question whether there should be an executive mayor, never mind whether he emerges in the assembly or is directly elected; not just whether there should be an assembly sitting, as it were, on top of the boroughs; but, crucially, the relationship that would exist between that mayor and that assembly: how

they would interrelate, how they would react to one another and the precise relationship of the checks and balances involved. Those are crucial questions.

Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the benefit of the experience of his party? I know that it has recently posed two totally different questions in the form of a single question, and has put that question to its membership—or what membership it can identify. I understand that that is quite a problem.

Mr. Forth: It may or may not surprise the hon. Lady—who does not yet know me all that well—that I was not greatly in favour of that exercise either. The point that I was trying to make is that it is surely unreasonable to ask people to make a decision on such important matters without going fairly deeply into the way in which the institutions concerned are expected to work. It is not good enough to ask, "Do you want a mayor?", without giving people some idea of the proposed relationship between the mayor and the boroughs, the mayor and the assembly, the assembly and the boroughs or any permutation of those.
As I pose those questions, it becomes obvious that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reduce those matters to the formulation that is perforce required in the referendum. That is my point. I have not even dealt with the other crucial permutations. The electoral system is a subject very dear to the hearts of Liberal Democrats. Many people may like the idea of an assembly, but only if it is under the traditional, single-Member, first-past-the-post system. They may be familiar with that system and want to identify directly with their assembly member, as they do with their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Labour Government's draft proposals would do away with that close, democratic, territorial connection. Many Conservative Members, including me, would be quite happy with a directly elected assembly containing assemblymen who represent our boroughs. My constituents want someone whom they can identify as fighting for them and their interests. If they cannot have that, why on earth should they vote for what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) called a pig in a poke?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be fair to the Labour party. It is consistent in its view of representatives. Its Members of Parliament—I think that we now call them the terracotta army—are expected to do nothing in the House, and to have little or no relationship with their electorate. We shall be told next week that it expects its Members of the European Parliament to have no relationship with their voters. It would be consistent for Labour to argue that members of the assembly should have as little relationship with their electorate as Labour Members or Members of the European Parliament have with theirs under the Labour party's other proposals. Funnily enough, I do not condemn the Labour party for that, because at least it is consistent.
When talking about those options to our voters, we are in danger of making an awful lot of assumptions about the formulations. We should not simply ask them, "Do you want an assembly?", without telling them about the relationships between the mayor and the boroughs or


the assembly, or what electoral system will be used. Even if we had complete clarity on those issues beforehand, there would not be a sufficient range of options in the questions to allow people legitimately to exercise a choice. Knowledge, clarity and awareness are wonderful, but if people cannot exercise their judgment on the basis of that information through the mechanism of the questions in the referendum, the whole exercise is bogus.
I have not even come to one of the most crucial problems: our old friend the question of money. Unless we ask people, as we asked the people of Scotland, whether they are prepared to pay extra taxation to finance the authority, or to give the mayor or the assembly the power to raise taxes to spend, the whole exercise will be seriously undermined.
The hon. Member for Brent, East would surely find that argument attractive. He and I may agree on the matter. People may like the idea of a mayor, and may want a mayor or an assembly to exercise widespread powers. If he is expected to undertake Londonwide projects and to do good things for London and its people, surely it is not unreasonable to ask the electorate whether they want the mayor or the assembly to have powers to raise extra taxes to make those aspirations a reality. That seems a reasonable proposition.
The hon. Gentleman rightly nods and smiles. We are not to have any of that. Not only will the people of London not be offered proper choices, options and related questions on which to exercise their judgment, but some questions will be missing. Sadly, they are missing from the options that are offered by my hon. Friends but, on this occasion, I shall forgive them for that.
Perhaps we must look for the least worst that is on offer. I strongly prefer the questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled, because at least they offer clarity and choice that will take people some way down the track. I would prefer to see a wider range of questions, but I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends for at least giving the crucial option that was missing from the original formulation offered by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He has generously offered a return to the matter and has said that we could try to get together and reformulate it in some way.
That is an attractive offer on which we can perhaps build, because there must be something useful to be had from this exercise. Surely we can use the debate in Committee to find an agreement that is much broader than the narrow, laser-like focus that the Government are trying to force us into.

9 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: A Conservative Member has said that part of the Bill is a bit like a blind date. That was a good analogy. I am prepared to make a blind offer to the hon. Gentleman, and Ministers may know the answer to my question. I would be happy for the two questions to have the two preferred options from the consultation paper. That would at least offer people an alternative. There is no need to get stuck on specifics, because there are ways of getting the two preferred options in front of the electorate, and on Friday we shall know what they are.

Mr. Forth: That is a helpful suggestion. It seems that everybody except the Government is trying to be positive and helpful. We have become rather used to that over the

past few months, but I hope that we shall not be expected to swallow it indefinitely and that, sooner or later, hon. Members other than the hon. Member for Brent, East will be prepared to speak up for their constituents.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be widely studied, because they have given a unique insight into the way that the Government works, not least in the light of what was said in the Chamber earlier today—much blow-hard nonsense about open government, modernisation and pre-legislative consultation. The debate illustrates the opposite—closed minds, single-minded determination to drive through a narrow set of proposals, and the brushing aside of all helpful and constructive suggestions that were made in the Chamber or by people outside in the process of consultation.
There has been no sign whatever of flexibility or open-mindedness. Sadly, if that remains the basis of consultations on the exercise, there is a risk that the institutions that the Government are determined to foist on the people of London will be much weaker and much more narrowly based, and will have a lesser chance of success. That will be a tragedy, because, even in view of my clear reservations about the necessity for any of this, if we must have the proposed institutional arrangement for London, we all desperately want it to be well thought out and to work for the benefit of London's people. Those must be our joint and several aspirations.
If the Minister continues down his present track, there is a risk that he will lack the support of me and my colleagues, that of the Liberal Democrats and the London boroughs and perhaps, as we have heard, of important elements in his party. The Minister and his colleague snigger as if to dismiss—

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I was laughing.

Mr. Forth: The junior Minister says that she was laughing. She laughed just at the point where I referred to the vivid account by the hon. Member for Brent, East of the Labour party's internal workings. If that does not confirm better than anything else his fears about the way in which his party is working, I do not know what does.
I leave that for Labour Members to work out, except to say that it is now on the record that his concerns, which he expressed with great sincerity, have been brushed off with artificial giggling and laughing by the Government Front-Bench team. That sums up perhaps better than anything the attitude with which Ministers came into the debate, which contrasts vividly with the attitudes of Opposition Members, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat, throughout the debate. I regret that. This is a sad day for London and for the legislation.
I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will think that Opposition Members' comments are worth contemplating, will reflect carefully on what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has suggested as a possible way forward, and will at last realise that the proposals will be materially improved if he allows that crucial flexibility that is suggested by the amendments.

Mr. Wilkinson: We have been privileged to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Many of us suspected that there was a


gagging order on Labour Members in this debate. Now we know that it is more serious than that, and I will write to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to find out whether the Labour party's standing orders accord with the procedures, as we know them, of the House. Labour Members are being intimidated into not expressing a particular view, and sanctions can be imposed on them that could prejudice their political careers and so preclude their taking part impartially and fair-mindedly in debates. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has spoken as he has.
There is a facile tendency, which many hon. Members have exposed, to believe that, if the capital city has a directly elected mayor, somehow, he will be a Dick Whittington figure and the capital's streets will again be paved with gold. It could be—we hope that it will if the people of London decide that we should have a directly elected mayor—that he will be a positive force to encourage investment and industrial and commercial regeneration of our capital city, which is already vibrant and buoyant, thanks to a successfully managed economy. However, the crucial effectiveness of his role will depend on his relationship with the assembly, because the authority is a single entity in the Government's eyes and it is the authority for which the Government are seeking approval in the question that Londoners will have to answer on 7 May.
It is noteworthy that the Government are asking a question that requests approval of their proposal for a Greater London authority, whereas the shadow Secretary of State and other Conservative Members are putting two essentially open questions of principle to the electorate. We ask:
Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor for Greater London?
We are asking whether they believe that the concept of a directly elected mayor is, of itself, beneficial for our capital city. Likewise, we ask:
Are you in favour of a directly elected assembly for Greater London?
All that the Government propose is that the electorate should accept hook, line and sinker the Government's proposals, which, as we have heard, remain almost entirely unclear.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I should have preferred a third and crucial question—the question uppermost in most Londoners' minds—to be posed: "Do you wish the assembly to have revenue—raising powers?" However, my hon. Friends are wise to ask the question, "Do you wish for a directly elected assembly?" as the electorate will understand that such an authority implicitly must have revenue-raising powers.
Although the Green Paper is almost entirely in interrogative mode and begs many more questions than it answers, at least one thing is plain—that the mayor will set a budget. I can well comprehend why the Government do not wish to ask two questions in the referendum. If Londoners know anything, it is that an assembly will accrete powers to itself and will have ambitions. Its members, especially if they have no territorial or constituency responsibilities, will feel no compunction about asking for more revenue, because they will be

directly responsible to no one—or only to the upper hierarchy of the Labour party, as we were told by the hon. Member for Brent, East. There will be no built-in mechanism for economy, cost control or effective scrutiny. The mechanism that is so essential to budgetary management is wholly absent from the Government's proposals.
No one knows how the assembly will provide revenues for the mayor or what will happen if the mayor has over-arching ambitions—and he may have, as the post seems to be attracting some of the biggest egos in the country. It is a recipe for conflict, confusion and, ultimately, expensive chaos. It would have been so much better if the Government had had the honesty to recognise that what was provided for the electors in Scotland in their referendum should, at the very least, be provided for the electors in Greater London—two questions. The electors may want the mayor but not the assembly, or vice versa. They should have that choice.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friends have said that one of the jobs of the mayor will be to promote London as the capital city and to attract investment to it. I presume that, with the sort of person that we are likely to get as mayor of our capital city—a big ego and big expectations—that will involve travelling abroad, which will cost money. There are clearly revenue implications. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who, as an outer-London Member, has great knowledge of London, be prepared to speculate on the cost of selling London abroad?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps hon. Members could talk about the amendments rather than going wide of them.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is tempting to speculate, but I will stick to the amendments.
We are also considering the Liberal Democrat amendment which would include among the questions asked:
Q1. Are you in favour of regional government for London"?
Londoners are proud because they are the residents of our capital city. The do not consider it to be a region—it is the heart of the nation. It is where the decisions are made that govern the United Kingdom. They will think that the amendment is condescending in the extreme.
In the eyes of the Government and of prospective candidates, the post of mayor attracts such interest because of the capital city's special nature. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the post will attract globe trotters. It will also, appropriately, require much hospitality to be shown to visiting delegations.
Although I appreciate the good will of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in suggesting that there should be consultation, I do not think that his formulation is the right one. The consultations should be based on amendment Nos 18 and 19, which have been tabled by the shadow Secretary of State and other Conservative Members.
To ask the London electorate in a pre-legislative referendum,


Are you in favour of the government's proposals",
when those proposals are not yet clear—they cannot be clear until the legislation has been passed by the House and the other place—is asking those electors to sign a blank cheque. They should be asked to approve clear and specific questions. Ideally perhaps, they should be asked three questions, but two questions, as proposed by Conservative Members, would be entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Leigh: A Committee stage is an opportunity to give short speeches. I take issue with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and think that, in this place, if one can reduce an argument to one or two sentences, it is all to the good. After two and a quarter hours of debate, I shall endeavour to make such a speech.
I was wrong, 12 years ago, when I was allowed, under the Conservative party's standing orders, to rebel over the future of the Greater London Council. I felt passionately about the issue, having worked as a young man in the GLC, having served on the GLC and having served as a borough councillor. I felt that what my party did then was wrong, because I felt that we were denying a voice to London. A landmark in my effortless rise in the Tory party was that, on many occasions, I rebelled on that issue.
I know now that I was wrong about the issue. Among the public in Greater London, there simply was not sufficient interest in the GLC. When the GLC was under Conservative control—let alone Labour control—it was, like the Department of Trade and Industry, an organisation in search of a role. That was the problem faced by the hon. Member for Brent, East—who had to develop all sorts of alternative roles and life styles for the GLC, which thereby lost the confidence of Londoners. The GLC had run out of time, and I was wrong to stand up for its future. I was right, however, to say that London needed a voice.
The Conservative party has now come up with the right solution, because there is a limit to Londoners' enthusiasm for another tier of government. Hon. Members may dismiss a mayoralty as a personality cult, but local government in London requires a mayoral election. It will generate real enthusiasm and regenerate interest in the problem. There is not enough business to do to sustain borough councils, a new assembly, a mayor and a Government—the whole lot.
I may be entirely wrong in saying that there is insufficient enthusiasm. Perhaps there is a role for an assembly, and perhaps all the arguments that we have heard will ensure that an assembly clips a mayor's powers. Ultimately, however—after two and a half hours of debate—I do not think that the Government can deny the choice of the people of London. The people will decide—trust them. Trust them to decide whether to have a mayor and an assembly, a mayor alone, or perhaps only an assembly. Why deny the people their choice?
As has been said, if the House fiddles around with and finesses this matter past the people of London, the desired referendum outcome will be won, because people want a voice for London.
However, it will not be a lasting outcome and in another 10 or 20 years' time we shall have to return to the issue. Let us do the job properly now, have a referendum with a real choice and let the people of London decide.

Mr. Raynsford: Once again, we have had a long debate, in the course of which we have heard a great deal of posturing from the Opposition about the nature of democratic choice as exercised through a referendum. Let me remind the Opposition that had they been in power, there would be no referendum. There would be no debate tonight about whether there should be one vote, two votes, three votes or more; there would be no votes because the Conservatives made it clear in their election manifesto that they saw no need for a mayor or an assembly or any change in London government. They were complacent and backward-looking. They totally failed to read the mood of the public in London and realise how London had been damaged by the abolition of the GLC and the lack of a strategic authority; justifiably, they paid a serious price in the election.
Now, of course, the Opposition have changed their minds. They realised that they were left behind and they have started to adapt their policies. They accept that there may be a case for a mayor, but they have not yet come around to agreeing the need for an assembly. That is why we are hearing so much posturing from the Opposition who are simply trying to justify their partial conversion on the road to London, not Damascus.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister refers to posturing by the Conservative party. Can he refer me to any Back-Bench speech that has supported his position?

Mr. Raynsford: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer to any speech by a Back-Bench Labour Member other than that by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? That is a pretty thin argument. The right hon. Gentleman has to refer to only one person to try to imply something. That is absolutely in character. The right hon. Gentleman loves to use selective quotations and to massage the figures to support his case. He gave us a good example of that earlier when talking about newspapers. It was pretty rich. He gave the impression that all the press were in favour of his proposition.
The right hon. Gentleman has an interest in a newspaper that is published in the Birmingham area. Could he imagine a debate about the future of Birmingham in which he did not refer to the views of the local newspaper? Today, however, he managed to give the impression that all the media and the press were on his side, yet he conveniently forgot to mention at any point the views of London's newspaper, the Evening Standard. He did not do so because he knows perfectly well that the Evening Standard has rubbished his party's position.
The Evening Standard made it quite clear that the Conservative proposition for a mayor with an assembly made up of the borough leaders would not work and was impractical and that there should be a single vote based on the Government's proposal. The Evening Standard is right and, as so often, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the amendments, as they go to the heart of our proposals for a Greater London authority. Londoners will be given the


opportunity to vote on a clear proposal—whether or not to establish a Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and an elected assembly. We shall make sure that the package that we put to Londoners is one that works and enables the new authority to get on with the real business at hand—addressing Londoners' needs and aspirations.
The mayor and the assembly are not separable. An authority without a directly elected mayor would be a very different organisation—one not qualified to give London the clear leadership that it needs. A mayor without an elected assembly to hold him or her to account would be too powerful and unaccountable. No one really believes that a part-time forum of borough leaders would ever have the time or the capacity to constitute an adequate check or balance. Frankly, the people of London should not be conned by the proposition from the Conservative party, which was opposed to any elected body to represent the interests of London.

Sir Norman Fowler: Just say, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Gentleman is right. Why cannot he have the courage to put the proposition to the public of London?

Mr. Raynsford: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said a moment ago. We are putting a proposition to the people of London which his party would never have put to them. There would have been no questions if his party had won the election—not one vote, not two votes, not three votes, not four votes, but no votes. The Conservative party took away from Londoners the right to have their own strategic authority. It allowed Londoners no say. It is sheer hypocrisy to try to make such a fuss.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: rose

Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way to the more civilised hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes: I am quite prepared to accept that the Minister has been persuaded of the Government's view. The Government are entitled to put that view. The Minister has still not said why, if Londoners have a different view, the Government's view is better and the people's view is worse. Why not ask Londoners whether they agree with the Government?

Mr. Raynsford: We have been consulting pretty intensively with Londoners and listening rather carefully to the views expressed. The most authoritative opinion poll—the one conducted by London Weekend Television, the Evening Standard and ICM Research in October—showed that 82 per cent. of those expressing an opinion were in favour of the Government's proposition of a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. We are going to put precisely that to the test.
Let us consider for a moment arguments for more than one question. What would more than one question achieve? What would a second, third or fourth question

say? Inevitably, the question arises which issues ought to be put. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said in a generous—and perhaps misguided—moment that he would be prepared to waive the Liberal Democrat amendment in favour of whichever two propositions appeared to command the most support as a result of the consultation. I must tell him that the consultation has revealed an enormously varied series of priorities.
There are people who are most concerned about electoral systems; there are people who are most concerned about the financing of the authority; there are people who are most concerned about the relationship between the mayor and the assembly; there are people who are most concerned about the powers of the authority.
The consideration of such responses could only result in the kind of process that has led the London borough of Wandsworth to a curious proposition on the form of the questions. Wandsworth has submitted proposals to us, which suggest not just one, not just two, not just three, but four questions. However, the questions are phrased in such a way that they actually imply about seven or eight questions. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said on Second Reading that, if one analyses the questions closely enough, one sees 11 separate questions.

Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I am not giving way. I am answering a question arising from a previous intervention.
The suggestion that one should have 11 questions in a referendum is simply fatuous, and not one that we as a Government could seriously entertain.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept that all sorts of issues will be priorities for respondents to the consultation. The point that I am putting to the Minister is not that our view, the Conservatives' view or the view of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is necessarily the best alternative. One could even allow the two most popular views in the consultation on the question of the structure of London government. The issue is not what are the alternatives but whether we give voters the choice.

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will inevitably recognise that even his party and the Conservatives cannot agree on the formulation of wording to achieve that effect. In practice, the Liberal Democrats' amendment would make it impossible for Conservative Members to vote for what I understand to be their preference: a mayor without an assembly. There is no way under the formulation proposed by the Liberal Democrats in which that preference could be expressed. So we have perfect evidence of why it is impossible to do justice to the myriad views that people are expressing through the form of a notional second question. There is not a notional second question. There is a series of possible second, third and fourth—and many more—questions.

Sir Norman Fowler: No.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman says no, but—

Sir Norman Fowler: On his proposed ballot paper, the Minister will ask the public whether they approve of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. Those are two questions. If the Liberal Democrats agreed with us that those should be the two questions, would the Government accept that?

Mr. Raynsford: We are putting forward the proposition that we spelled out in our manifesto for a package. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that Conservative Members—and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) —have expressed doubts about honouring manifesto commitments. The Government believe that honouring manifesto commitments is very important. It is a matter of trust between the Government and the electorate. We have given those pledges and we are proposing a package involving mayor and assembly.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Minister saying that he will not accept any proposal for two questions under any circumstances?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not listening. I am trying to point out to him that no single proposition for a simple second question can be put forward. I ask him to listen for once, rather than trying to convince everyone of his point of view. He might benefit from listening to others. There are many possible propositions that people may be interested in, covering the form of election, the relationship between mayor and assembly, the powers of the authority and its remit. Those are all legitimate issues. The right hon. Gentleman need only ask the leader of Wandsworth council, who thinks that there are many questions to be asked.
There is no simple second question. Even the Conservative and Liberal Democrat proposals, would not do justice to people with a different point of view. A Conservative who does not favour an assembly but wants a mayor could not get that outcome from the wording put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Someone who wants a mayor and assembly would have a difficult dilemma if presented with the Conservative proposals.

Sir Norman Fowler: No, they would not.

Mr. Raynsford: Yes they would. Let me explain to Conservative Members, who seem a little slow in grasping that. Consider someone who voted yes to a mayor and to an assembly. The outcome could be a majority for an assembly, but not for a mayor. That person would have supported what may well be their least favoured option. A proper choice would be between a mayor or an assembly or both. All three would have to be offered. That is the only way in which someone could say that they wanted a mayor and assembly together but did not want one without the other. The Conservatives seem to have no understanding of the implications. They have created a bogus sense of grievance about democracy when they would never have allowed democracy to the people of London. They would not have given any votes.
We have heard a lengthy debate with a great deal of hot air and very little cool analysis. We are putting forward a detailed proposition—a package that the people of

London can decide on. They will decide whether they want the Government's proposal. If they vote no, we shall not proceed. If they vote yes, they will have an assembly and a mayor together, able to give London the leadership and government that it requires. That is a fair, sensible and democratic proposition. I commend it to my hon. Friends, and urge them to reject the amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This has been an interesting debate in two respects. The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), as well as others of us who were aware of the issue before, picked up on the fact that there is a risk tonight of some Labour Members not being able to vote the way they want to because the rules of their party impede their right to exercise their democratic choices. That is a much bigger issue than the one under debate, and we shall certainly return to it on another occasion.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for his last intervention in the Minister's speech, when he asked him whether any set of two questions would prove to be acceptable to the Minister. The Minister had no answer to that. I will take up the challenge—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, too—because I think it entirely possible to draft a two-question formula. If we do, it will appear on Report; and woe betide the Government if, faced with an agreed set of alternatives, they refuse to offer it to the people of London.
The amendment would amend clause 1 with a deletion that would leave only the proposition that there be a referendum, without fixing in advance the nature of that referendum. My party happens to believe that a mayor and an assembly directly but separately elected would result in London speaking with two voices—but we believe the people should decide. We happen to prefer a prime ministerial system to a presidential system for London—but we believe that Londoners should decide. My party believes that, if there is an election for an assembly and a separate one for a mayor, the latter will become a personality contest—but we believe that Londoners should decide. We prefer our model to others—but we believe that Londoners should decide.
The Government proposals, if unamended, mean in effect, "You can have a choice of London government, provided it is ours."

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: East European.

Mr. Hughes: It certainly is. Londoners are being offered democracy but only on the Government's own terms. The Government in fact propose to tell the people of London which sort of government they should have. We propose asking them which sort of London government they would prefer.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 311.

Division No. 91]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)


Allan, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony






Ballard, Mrs Jackie
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lidington, David


Brake, Tom
Livsey, Richard


Brand, Dr Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Breed, Colin
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacKay, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burnett, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burstow, Paul
Madel, Sir David


Butterfill, John
Maples, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


(Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa


Chidgey, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Chope, Christopher
Moore, Michael


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Norman, Archie


Cotter, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Cran, James
Ottaway, Richard


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Page, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)



Day, Stephen
Randall, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Rendel, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
St Aubyn, Nick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sanders, Adrian


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Swayne, Desmond


Gorrie, Donald
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Greenway, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Temple—Morris, Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hancock, Mike
Townend, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Tredinnick, David


Harvey, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Wallace, James


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Waterson, Nigel


Horam, John
Webb, Steve


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Wells, Bowen


Hunter, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilkinson, John


Johnson Smith,
Willis, Phil


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Keetch, Paul
Yeo, Tim


Key, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George





Tellers for the Ayes:


Paul Tyler and


Mr. Andrew Stunell.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Ms Jean


Alexander, Douglas
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Atherton, Ms Candy
(Copeland)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Austin, John
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Darvill, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Beggs, Roy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drown, Ms Julia


Blizzard, Bob
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Etherington, Bill


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Loma


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Follett, Barbara


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Burgon, Colin
Fyfe, Maria


Butler, Mrs Christine
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Galloway, George


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Norman A


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cawsey, Ian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chaytor, David
Grant, Bemie


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grogan, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cooper, Yvette
Home Robertson, John






Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
O'Hara, Eddie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Olner, Bill


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jenkins, Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pearson, Ian


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Purchase, Ken


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rammell, Bill


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Love, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAllion, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salter, Martin


McCabe, Steve
Savidge, Malcolm


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNamara, Kevin
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Maginnis, Ken
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Squire, Ms Rachel


Martlew, Eric
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Meale, Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Merron, Gillian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michael, Alun
Stringer, Graham


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Milburn, Aln
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Miller, Andrew
(Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Todd, Mark





Touhig, Don
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Trickett, Jon
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Truswell, Paul
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Wise, Audrey


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Worthington, Tony


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wray, James


Walley, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wareing, Robert N


Watts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


White, Brian
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 15, page 1, line 9, leave out 'an elected assembly' and insert
'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.

The Chairman Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, page 1, line 10, leave out 'separately' and insert 'directly'.
No. 17, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'an' and insert 'a directly'.
No. 28, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'a separately elected assembly' and insert
'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.

Mr. Ottaway: Anybody who listened to the speeches on Second Reading and tonight would feel that some Labour Members wished to bring back the GLC. They expressed a nostalgic feeling that the good old days of the GLC should be allowed to return. I remind Labour Members of what the Green Paper says—I presume that the Minister endorses it—in paragraph 1.09:
This is not an exercise in bringing back the Greater London Council.
Any Labour Member who thinks that the Bill will bring back the GLC is wrong, and any Labour Member who appeals for its return is out of line with his party.
I have been struck by the number of Labour Members who seem to lament the passing of the GLC. Indeed, I thought at one point on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) was about to grab a box of Kleenex. That is extraordinary when we remember that the GLC cost Londoners some £2 billion a year to run, and all the more extraordinary when we remember that it squandered thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money so readily on the most invidious cases—such as the £30,000 it gave to the Camden Policing the Police group and the £38,000 to the Campaign against the Police Bill.
I do not for one moment lament the passing of the GLC. Labour Members say that we abolished it without any consultation with the people of London. They are wrong. We fought the 1983 general election in London on an abolitionist commitment. We won just over half of London seats in 1979. By 1983, we had won exactly two thirds of London seats. That was our mandate from the people of London. They had had enough, and Labour Members would do well to remember that.
Even the Labour party manifesto in 1983 demonstrated concern at the state of local government at that time. The section on local democracy stated:
We are examining how best to reform local government… and we aim to end, if we can, the present confusing division of services between two tiers of authority.


Those are words that Labour Members would do well to remember.
Let me remind Labour Members of the reaction to our abolition proposals at the time. The Confederation of British Industry, an organisation that they are not usually shy of endorsing, supported our view that reform of metropolitan government was necessary, and that the GLC should be abolished. It supported devolution of most functions to lower-tier authorities, possibly in the form of a district joint board. Moreover, in its business leaders manifesto in 1983, the Institute of Directors urged local government reform, including abolition of the GLC.
It was not as if there was no comment at the time; it was not as if there was a void into which we stepped. A proposal for the abolition of the GLC was in our manifesto, business leaders wanted it, and the community wanted it.
The GLC was a dinosaur running out of control, but we recognise that things have moved on since then. After all, 10 years is a long time in politics. The world has become a global village, and it is essential that London's representative is prepared and able to move around in that village.
I will take no lectures from those on the Government Benches on changing policy. They are already old hands at going back on manifesto commitments. In only five months, they have changed their mind on tobacco advertising and tuition fees. That gives me hope that it is not too late for the Government to change their mind on the nature of the assembly that they are offering Londoners.
The Government are offering the people of London the chance to vote in a referendum on their plans for a Greater London authority. The authority has two parts: a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly.
The House will know of Conservative support for a mayor. Let us have a mayor. The Government, the Conservative party and much of London agree on the need for a directly elected mayor for London. I look forward to the election of a mayor—not least to the election campaign, and the election of a Conservative candidate as the mayor for London.
We need a mayor who will be an ambassador for our great city, a strong voice for its people and a champion of Londoners, promoting London on the international stage. The mayor will be able to publicise the capital's case on issues ranging from inward investment and regeneration funding to the bidding for sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympic games.
However, the last thing that London or the mayor needs is a directly elected assembly, a kind of GLC mark II. On this proposal, opinion is divided in the Labour party

—we have heard the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and London borough leaders expressing their doubts—in the boroughs and among the people of London.
That is why, on this proposal, the Government have decided not to put a separate question to London's electorate. That gesture demonstrates the Government's doubts about their own proposal. It is proof that a directly elected assembly is the weak link in Labour's plans to reform London government.
The House will know of Conservative concerns about the Government's plans for a one-question referendum. That is a point of great relevance to the amendment, because it illustrates the Government's own lack of confidence about the assembly. They want to lump it into a single question about a directly elected mayor. That is because the disadvantages of a directly elected assembly far outweigh the advantages.
I have been canvassing opinion in my constituency and in London as a whole. I have found that there is wide support for a voice for London, but hardly anyone agrees with the detail of the Government's proposals. That is why, perhaps, something curious has happened to the single question. That must be because the Government are nowhere near as confident as their case suggests for a directly elected assembly for London.
It appears that the Government have changed the wording of the proposed—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again. — [Mr. Betts.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the permission of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Deregulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Shops (Sunday Trading &c.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved. — [Mr. Betts.]

Orders of the Day — Illegal Drugs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Jamieson.]

10 pm

Ms Gisela Stuart: I am glad to have the opportunity to talk about illegal drugs, and especially their long-term harmful effects. Those drugs are deemed to be illegal substances because they damage the individual to such an extent that what seems to be a private choice to begin with becomes a public choice. That happens when their use leads either to anti-social behaviour or long-term damage to the individual, so that society as a whole deems such use to be unacceptable.
There is a continued increase in the incidence of drug taking. The evidence shows that between 1989 to 1995 nationwide drug usage increased by two and a half times, but in Birmingham it increased ninefold. We find also that young people take drugs in increased numbers and that such young people are getting younger and younger. Drug incidents in primary schools are by no means unknown.
The debate was sparked by yet another piece of research on the permanent brain damage that is caused by Ecstasy, which is often referred to as a recreational drug. I find that terminology extremely misleading and dangerous, and that is not merely a matter of semantics.
I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to several press reports. The most recent one appeared in the New Scientist. It tells us that the brain scans of drug users reveal the first direct evidence that Ecstasy or MDMA can trigger long-lasting changes in the human brain, which cause memory impairment and depression.
The year before the article to which I have referred appeared, an article—again in the New Scientist—in June reported, following a study among students, that a weekend dose of Ecstasy can lead to forgetfulness, poor concentration and midweek blues that are severe enough to qualify the sufferer for clinical treatment.
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology made an important observation in March when it told us that, in contrast to such drugs as cannabis, on which there is research literature stretching back 25 years or more, the relatively recent emergence of Ecstasy means that there is much less research on its potential psychological and health effects.
We have information on long-term drug damage that is fairly generic. Prolonged exposure to most drugs can lead to tolerance where the user develops a form of immunity and needs higher doses to produce a given effect. Most drugs cause some dependence if taken for prolonged periods. I am particularly concerned about their psychological effects, because those are much more difficult to measure. If drug use leads to long-term psychiatric effects, we as a society should be extremely concerned. Long-term use of Ecstasy causes a massive release of the neuro-transmitter serotonin by causing the stored neuro-transmitter to be released and inhibiting its re-uptake, so that its effect is increased and prolonged.
I shall make a point that we often tend to forget. Young people, who are most at danger, make very rational decisions. They make much more sophisticated risk assessments. We have a problem because, as parents, we encourage our children as they grow up to take risks,

to try things. When a child will not eat spinach, we say, "How do you know that you don't like spinach if you've never tried it?" Five or six years later, we say, "Here's something that you mustn't try." We need very good evidence and facts to convince our children when we warn them about the long-term danger.
I talked to DASH—the drugs and sexual health project in Birmingham—and asked for its experience of Ecstasy. In the first two years it recorded face-to-face contact with 3,400 drug users, particularly in clubs. Thirty-one per cent. of inquiries came from Ecstasy users wanting more information about the drug. The standard profile of an Ecstasy user is likely to be male, but we should not underestimate the number of young women who take Ecstasy; they simply seem to use it less.
Users are likely to be in their early twenties and use Ecstasy in addition to a range of other drugs, notably alcohol, cannabis and amphetamines. They make choices about the substance on which to get high on a particular night. They will consume one or two Es one or two nights per week, almost every week, for much of the year. Usage may continue for between two and four years. It is a social group activity which they grow out of. However, if it results in long-term or permanent brain damage, we cannot take it as something that is part of the club scene and just tolerate it.
Young people express concern about the long-term effects of drug usage, but when they assess the risk they have difficulty in finding the facts. I sent my researcher to a library yesterday to find some facts about the various long-term effects, and asked her to pretend to be a member of the public. She came back very surprised and said, "I found some very old medical text books with information on LSD, but I knew that it was not telling me the whole picture." We tend to overlook how difficult it is for youngsters and parents to find the facts, unless they are already in certain schemes.
We also face the difficulty that we want to spell out the realities very starkly to youngsters while not frightening the parents too much, so that they can handle the situation. Parents face the double problem of a teenager who is difficult at the best of times and a teenager who is taking drugs.
There are some very good organisations. One in particular that I have come across in Birmingham is Parents for Prevention. It is extremely useful. It is mainly for parents who are concerned about drugs or who face problems with their children: they either suspect that they are drug abusers or know that they are. Parents for Prevention educates parents about the drug culture and the effect of drugs, but in particular it enables them to cope with the situation so that it does not escalate. In the first 12 months of operation, its helpline had contact with some 2,600 parents and professionals. Most callers were mothers, and their main concerns related to cannabis, amphetamines, LSD, solvents and heroin.
The organisation provides continuing support for parents, visiting and befriending them. The system involves parents helping other parents. It also organises courses that all of us with teenage children should welcome—the "living with teenagers" programme. It recognises that a joint approach is essential.
What I welcome particularly about the Parents for Prevention campaign is that its funding is currently also a joint effort. The campaign is financed by the Home Office


and the drug prevention initiative, but also by the local authority action trust and Birmingham health authority, which recognises that dealing with drugs must be a cross-institutional initiative. The ultimate aim is to set up groups across the city that help parents to help other parents.
Once people's children are taking drugs, we have embarked on the dangerous debate about harm reduction and minimisation. We must recognise that once we have implemented harm reduction measures such as licensing requirements for drugs, it is, in a sense, too late: the young people have already started taking drugs. Although such measures are essential, they should not be the sole aim; we should not accept that we have to live with the problem.
My main purpose is to plead for much more research and much more evidence-based information. Youngsters respond to that. The more hard facts we have, the more they will follow those facts. The approach to the heart does not work, as we saw in the Leah Betts case: that did not, in a sense, reduce the attraction of Ecstasy.
A report produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in May 1996 gave a good summary of the position. It stated;
Given the inherently psychoactive nature of these drugs, the major potential problem area is the definition of psychology/psychiatry. Here there are many research targets. At the basic level, the natural function of the cannabis receptor is not yet known, even though it is one of the more common types in the brain. Secondly, there are differences of view over the extent to which current psychiatric problem derive from illegal drugs.
The report asks for more information that influences behaviour.
I am often concerned when I hear the argument that the only kids who suffer from long-term exposure to drugs such as Ecstasy were already prone to some other addiction. That is simply a recognition that some groups are more vulnerable; it should not be used as an excuse for not emphasising the dangers of Ecstasy.
We need to recognise the existence of drug dependency, and accept that some groups of people have dependent or addictive natures. Again, that is no excuse for taking no action: it simply means that a different way of tackling the problem may be needed. I remember talking to a mother who said, "I have two kids. One is not a risk-taker, but the other is." The messages not to take drugs would be very different for those two children. Both messages must recognise their separate psychological dispositions, but both must be based on fact.
The most dangerous thing is conflicting information: young people in particular pick up inconsistencies, and the illogical arguments of adults, much faster than anyone else. If the case that we advance is not credible, they will not listen to us.
We need better information about patterns of use and about the mixture of various drugs. It is very unhelpful, for example, to say that only so many cases are related purely to Ecstasy. That does not help if we know that a mixture of drugs is causing the problem. Since 1972, the United States drug abuse warning network has provided the US Government with consistent sets of statistics on the harmful effects of drugs gathered from hospital accident and emergency departments and drug-related deaths.
Large-scale epidemiological surveys have examined the socio-economic aspect—which groups of children are more likely to use certain drugs. There is an argument that Ecstasy is taken mostly by young people who earn a lot and take it at weekends. That is no excuse for not taking the matter seriously.
My plea to the Minister is that we need more evidence-based information. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) to give the scientist's view of this problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is not for the hon. Member to determine who should speak. An hon. Member may catch my eye.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for requesting this timely debate, and for allowing me to participate, albeit briefly. I listened with interest to her comments, and agree with them all.
There are no safe drugs, legal or illegal. Society must weigh the advantages of the use of drugs against the disadvantages. Ecstasy, MDMA is an amphetamine with the chemical name 3,4-methylenedioxy-a-methylamphetamine, from where the abbreviation comes. It is almost certainly neurotoxic: the report to which my hon. Friend referred contains evidence to support that view, and I have been preaching that for many years.
When I told my students that, if they took Ecstasy—probably some did—it could be neurotoxic, they expressed great surprise and asked me what "neurotoxic" meant. It means damage to the central nervous system that is considered irreversible. I hope that, as a result of students being told about the health risks, those who took Ecstasy were deterred from taking it ever again.
If a given age group took Ecstasy over a prolonged period, it is conceivable that at some time in the future a generation of people would exhibit Alzheimer-type symptoms at a much earlier age than is usual now. However, I do not think that that is probable, because the taking of Ecstasy is a phase in young people's lives. The November edition of The Big Issue, which is sold in London, suggests that the drug culture on the rave scene is changing, and that people are moving off Ecstasy. Goodness knows what will be the next rave drug. Fashions change, and we must keep an eye on that.
Ecstasy's dehydration effects are well known. I condemn those nightclubs and rave clubs that turn off the natural water taps. That is happening on quite a scale across Britain. It has happened in my own town, and Bolton council has taken action against clubs that have turned off the mains water at source to force young people to pay more than £2 for bottled water at the bar. I draw the Minister's attention to that practice, because it must be stopped.
I want to refer briefly to the impurity of street drugs. It is often not the MDMA that causes the problem, including death in a very few cases; it is mainly the impurities that are present in street drugs. Such drugs are made under poor conditions, often in back-street garages, with no analytical control: certainly not the analytical control that is prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry. I do not think that young people who buy street drugs


realise what they are buying. In most cases, they are buying not a pure drug, but highly contaminated materials from irresponsible people.
I implore the Minister to study the harm-reduction programmes that other countries have undertaken, including the Netherlands, which is the leader in this area. I refer to simple, analytical kits, which are cheap, so that users can prevent themselves from being damaged.
I also want to refer to the serious business of polydrugs. In Bolton, young people are taking not only one drug, but a multitude of drugs, even on the same night. There is no research on the synergistic effects, which is the action of one drug on another. We must point out to young people that they put themselves at great risk when they take a combination of drugs, because they may have powerful, synergistic effects. We know nothing about the polydrug scene, which is very damaging. I draw that to the Minister's attention.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing an opportunity to raise these important issues. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for his contribution.
The Government are well aware of the effects of drug misuse not only on the drug takers and, often, their families but on society as a whole. One of our manifesto commitments was to appoint an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate our battle against drugs and as a symbol of our commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs in many communities. We have fulfilled that commitment by appointing Keith Hellawell as the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator and Mike Trace as his deputy. That is not an end in itself, and across government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, we will work closely with Mr. Hellawell and Mr. Trace to develop our strategy to tackle the misuse of drugs.
While awaiting the arrival of Mr. Hellawell and Mr. Trace, we have continued to undertake activity in relation to a range of problems. A wide range of drug initiatives is under way. Some 79 innovative local anti-drugs projects have been supported through the drugs challenge fund. Plans for a reduction in front-line customs staff have been reversed; proposals have been brought forward for a drug testing treatment order; and a cross-departmental review is under way to assess the resources that are available for action against drugs. That is evidence of the Government's recognition that effective action against the threat posed by drugs to our young people and to society as a whole needs to be waged on a number of fronts.
Before I turn to the specific issues that my hon. Friend has raised, I should like to put in context much of the media speculation about the extent of drug misuse in this country. Drug misuse is not the normal majority pattern among young people. Authoritative figures published in September from the 1996 British crime survey showing that while about half of our young people have taken prohibited drugs in their lifetimes, only one in seven could be said to take drugs on anything remotely like a regular basis. That is a similar picture to the one of two years ago, but it is no grounds for complacency, because the figures are still worryingly high. However, it is important to put the issue in context.
Many young people who are offered drugs choose to decline. The Health Education Authority commissioned a survey of 5,000 young people in the autumn of 1995 and found that, while 70 per cent., reported that they had been offered drugs at some time in their lives, only 45 per cent. had actually taken them. That is a hopeful sign that young people are capable of making informed choices. It underlines the importance of our powerful health education and health promotion messages about the risks of drug taking.
I shall now deal with the impact of drug taking and its link to crime. Another aspect of drug misuse that many choose to overlook is that, as well as its effect on the person who takes drugs, it has wide-ranging effects on the society in which we live. Many people are damaged. Estimates for the level of drug-related crime vary. They include one by West Yorkshire police that up to 70 per cent. of acquisitive crime is drug-related. I am sure that my hon. Friends would testify to that from their constituency experience. We all know that crimes have victims. They may be those whose homes are burgled, and businesses also experience loss due to crime. Every one of those victims would be only too willing to testify to the damage caused to society by the effects of drug misuse.
Then there is the fear of crime—its unquantifiable effect on many people, rendering elderly people, in particular, prisoners in their own homes. Reducing drug-related crime is a key objective for police forces in the coming year. The Government will pilot a drug testing and treatment order to enable courts to impose treatment for seriously addicted offenders, and we shall make widely available what we learn from the work of local projects in implementing and evaluating drug interventions at different points in the criminal justice system and in different parts of the United Kingdom.
In that context, I strongly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston about the importance of proceeding on the basis of evidence, understanding what works and acting on the basis of what we know to be effective.
Hon. Members may be aware that, at the end of October, I announced that health authorities would receive more than £41 million next year for drug treatment services. That is an extra £3 million, and represents a real-terms increase of 8 per cent. over the 1997–98 figure. It will allow the national health service to continue the development of effective treatment services for drug misusers. It will also enable health authorities to build on their existing services and to develop them on the lines of carefully tested guidance sent out by the Department earlier this year on purchasing effective treatment and care for drug misusers, again concentrating heavily on building on good practice.
I take on board the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised about young people in clubs who may have taken Ecstasy and have to buy water, rather than be able to drink it from the tap. That is a dangerous practice on which we want to take action. It is another example of a specific step that must be taken as part of a comprehensive approach to tackling drugs. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give the whole drugs programme high priority during our presidency of the European Union next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston talked about the long-term effects of Ecstasy, referring to research, reported in the New Scientist, at the university of Baltimore. She suggested that Ecstasy use permanently damaged brain function. Although we have yet to study the detail of that research, its conclusions are broadly in line with existing knowledge about Ecstasy's dangers. It causes massive release of serotonin and inhibits the brain nerve cells' ability to absorb the serotonin, so that the drug's effect is both increased and prolonged. It gives a boost well outside the range of normal emotions, accounting for the intense empathy and mood change while under the influence of the drug.
Of course we know that those short-term mood changes can have long-term, damaging persistent effects. We need to make that clear in ways that they will accept to young people who choose to risk taking Ecstasy; they need to understand that we are on their side.
The Government are funding a three-year campaign by the Health Education Authority to inform young people of the risks of drug misuse. I make it clear that we insist that all materials are tested for effectiveness with young people. If the messages are anodyne, suitable for grown-ups and lost on young people, the message will be ineffective and will fail the important test that my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston offered: measures should be proved to be effective.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.